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.

2,397 searchable experts 4,280 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.

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.

Showing signals surfaced by John Warner ×
New & accelerating

What is moving across the network now

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

Established AI field signal Signal 3d ago

theatlantic.com

3 experts across 2 network communities independently surfaced this.

3 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Ian Bogost Damon Beres John Warner

“I wrote about what I learned from a year or more of “vibecoding” small, personal projects: Fifty years after personal computers supposedly made computing yours, the activity keeps receding back into the computing priesthood.”

“Thoughtful, and I'm going to say, prescient stuff from @ibogost.com www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/1...”

2 experts discussed this · 2 posts
John Warner: Thoughtful, and I'm going to say, prescient stuff from @ibogost.com www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/1...
Ian Bogost: Thanks, John. Writing this clarified some of my thoughts about AI writing, which I plan to return to ~soon~.
Open the full discussion →
Primary source theatlantic.com ↗
Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

2 experts · 6 posts · 1d ago
John Warner Jane Rosenzweig
John Warner: I don’t know anyone who says “writing is thinking” who would argue it’s the only way to think. And LLM “thinking” is nothing like human thinking because their thinking is absent experiences.
John Warner: It’s assembling language on the basis of probabilities, sure, but IMO, that’s not writing, certainly not writing as thinking while human when we’re attempting to capture and/or explore an idea.
Open the thread →