The success of the AI field in the last few years has attracted more attention, resources and talent.

Judge as of 2025-08-03 against the few years before that date (roughly 2020–2025). True: credible data show clear increases in all three: attention (media coverage, public or policy interest), resources (AI investment or funding, compute spending) and talent (AI researchers or workforce, enrolments, publications or job moves), and these rises are widely linked to the field's recent successes (e.g. ChatGPT, AlphaFold, LLMs). Mostly true: two of the three clearly rose and the third rose only modestly or the evidence for it is thin. Mixed: only one of the three clearly rose, or the evidence on several is conflicting. Mostly false: the increases are real but small, or mostly limited to a narrow part of the field, so the general claim overstates them. False: the data show attention, resources and talent to AI flat or falling over that period.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 How ChatGPT Changed the Media's Narratives on AI arXiv (Ryazanov, Öhman, Björklund; Umeå and Uppsala universities)

   “The total number of publications after the ChatGPT release is more than 6 times higher than in the six months before, with the monthly average rising from 132 before to 842 after.”

2. E2 Investors are growing increasingly weary of AI | TechCrunch TechCrunch · 15 April 2024

   “found that global investment in AI fell for the second year in a row in 2023.”

3. E3 AI Index 2025: State of AI in 10 Charts Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) · 7 April 2025

   “In 2016, only one state-level AI-related law was passed, increasing to 49 by 2023. In the past year alone, that number more than doubled to 131.”

E1 shows media attention to AI rose more than sixfold after ChatGPT's release, and E4 shows state-level AI laws rose from 49 in 2023 to 131 the next year, so attention clearly increased. On resources, E2 reports that global AI investment fell in 2023 for the second year in a row, which conflicts with a clear rise. No evidence covers talent. Only one of the three clearly rose and the evidence on resources conflicts, which matches the 'mixed' criterion.