trailEffective training compute required for AI systems capable of automating all economic tasks (FLOP, in 2025-equivalent effective FLOP)
The lower bound from present frontier shortfall
As of 2025–2026, frontier AI systems trained at 10^26–10^27 FLOPs fall short of automating all economic tasks.
atomic
The anchoring and effective-compute-gap argument
Increasing AI automation from 20% to 100% of economic tasks requires several orders of magnitude more effective compute.
not yet estimated
Log10 ratio of effective compute required to automate 100% versus 20% of economic tasks (the "effective FLOP gap")
The argument from rapid capability gains at current scale
AI agents’ 50%-reliability software-task horizon will continue doubling approximately every seven months.
≈ 203 days
Doubling time of the 50%-task-completion time horizon of frontier AI models on METR's software task suite, 2019–2025, in days
◌
↑
Increasing training compute enables AI systems to automate increasingly complex tasks.
◌
◌
◌
≈ 103 days
Doubling time, in days, of the 50%-task-completion horizon of frontier AI models released from 2024 onward on METR's software task suite
◌
+1
assumed
AI capabilities can be adequately modeled as a function of a single effective-compute variable combining physical compute and algorithmic efficiency.
quantity · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →quantity page ↗︎
Effective training compute required for AI systems capable of automating all economic tasks (FLOP, in 2025-equivalent effective FLOP)
≈ 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trillion eFLOP90% interval 30,000,000,000,000,000 trillion eFLOP to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trillion eFLOP, with a 15% chance that Probability that the quantity is ill-defined: full automation is not reached by scaling a single effective-compute axis (e.g. because data, embodiment, or paradigm changes make 2025-equivalent eFLOP an unworkable conversion).
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.