trailReliance on AI capability benchmarks leads to systematic overestimation of AI's real-world impact.
The argument from the benchmark-to-capability gap· for
AI benchmarks overestimate models' capabilities on real-world tasks.
AI coding agents' benchmark-passing patches are often rejected by human maintainers.
Training-data contamination inflates language models' scores on public benchmarks.
AI capability benchmarks underestimate models' capabilities by limiting elicitation, scaffolding, and iterative feedback.
Time-horizon trends measured on benchmark software tasks generalize to real-world software work.
↓
◌
◌
The argument from the capability-to-impact gap· for
Occupational-task benchmark parity alone does not establish AI's labor-market impact.
Employment effects of occupational task automation depend on demand elasticity, task complementarity, and adoption costs.
Occupational-task benchmarks of AI use precisely specified, one-shot tasks that omit the context-gathering and interaction of real jobs.
AI's real-world economic and societal impact is constrained more by slow diffusion and adoption than by capability limitations.
The speed of AI diffusion is limited by how quickly individuals, organizations, and institutions can adapt.
◌
◌
◌
AI's diffusion through the economy will follow the same dynamics as past general-purpose technologies.
⇄
AI has produced a measurable increase in aggregate productivity growth by 2026.
A gap between AI capability and reliability is a major barrier to AI agents automating real-world tasks.
◌
◌
◌
+2
The argument from the forecasting track record· for
Expert and industry forecasts of AI's near-term real-world impact have systematically exceeded realized outcomes.
Developers substantially overestimate productivity gains from AI coding tools.
atomic
The argument from underestimated progress· against
AI experts underestimated the pace of AI capability progress over the past decade.
atomic
claim · causalA claim that one thing brings about another, not merely that the two go together.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Reliance on AI capability benchmarks leads to systematic overestimation of AI's real-world impact.
↑SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →credence 0.60Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.