trailOccupational-task benchmark parity alone does not establish AI's labor-market impact.
Reliance on AI capability benchmarks leads to systematic overestimation of AI's real-world impact.
The argument from the gap between task performance and economic outcomes· for
Occupational-task benchmarks of AI use precisely specified, one-shot tasks that omit the context-gathering and interaction of real jobs.
atomic
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.
↓
◌
◌
Employment effects of occupational task automation depend on demand elasticity, task complementarity, and adoption costs.
atomic
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Occupational-task benchmark parity alone does not establish AI's labor-market impact.
✓VerifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →credence 0.95Credence, 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 →
1depended on by
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.