Expert attention map

The Who's Who of AI

What credible people across AI noticed, why it matters, and where the field is converging or disagreeing.

2,373 searchable experts 3,451 tracked across all sources

Build my stream Create my edition

Filter the conversation Who is saying what?

Combine a professional role with a reaction lens. Both must match the same attributed contribution.

Who is contributing? How are they reacting?

Topic Search developments Clear all

New Network reaction maps

See how experts are reacting—not just what they shared.

Posts are grouped by conversation and tone. Select a lens to filter the stream; these are never permanent labels on people.

0 live reaction maps in this view

No development in this filter has enough independent reactions yet. The maps appear as soon as the evidence supports them.

Debated

The questions experts are actively pulling apart

One card per development. Sources are clustered; reaction bundles describe these posts, never the people behind them.

No developments match these filters yet.

Try the field-wide view or clear one of the filters.

Clear filters

More conversations

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 6 posts · 1d ago

Mark Riedl Ethan Mollick Max Woolf Jeffrey Vagle

Jeffrey Vagle: Indeed. Infocom >> Sierra Online.

Ethan Mollick: I played a lot of Zork, and agree this is not pure Zork. But it is also not not Zork. And sadly the kids these days aren't playing Zork.

Open the thread →

2 experts · 3 posts · 1d ago

Ben Williamson samuel mehr

samuel mehr: I got a text from an academic who's sure the editorial rejection they received, from a v good journal that I also publish in and review for, is AI-written, or at least heavily AI-edited. I read the…

Ben Williamson: Awful. We have specific text in our invites to reviewers reminding them that it is unacceptable to feed unpublished manuscripts into commercial LLM platforms.

Open the thread →