AI systems perform a large and rapidly growing share of AI research and development at frontier labs.
Assessment
The evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.
On the measures frontier labs publish, AI systems do a large and fast-growing share of the work of AI research and development. Anthropic reports that Claude wrote over 90% of contributions to its codebase in September 2026, and OpenAI reports that AI agents did about 3.1 workdays of work per human workday in August 2026, up from about 0.5 in May; OpenAI also reports rising rates of tasks completed without human intervention (57% of 2 to 4 hour tasks in July 2026, up from 28% in January). A November 2026 review by the Forecasting Research Institute summarizes this company data as showing a large and fast-growing AI share.
Two qualifications limit how far this goes. First, the figures are reported by the companies themselves, which have an interest in the narrative of automated research, and outsiders cannot audit them. Second, they count volume of output (code, agent-hours), not contribution to research progress. Labs report that research judgment, such as choosing goals and directions, remains mostly human; no measured part of Anthropic's AI R&D is fully autonomous, and AI agents still fail open-ended research evaluations. Estimates of overall acceleration (about 1.5x to 2x at Anthropic, per METR) are modest compared with what a 90% labour share would suggest. The claim therefore holds on a volume reading of "share" and is weaker on a reading weighted by contribution to progress. Independent, contribution-weighted measurement would settle the gap.
Full reasoning: the evidence and decisions behind this verdict
Prior: by late 2026, with coding agents widely deployed, it is plausible that most code at frontier labs is AI-written, while autonomous research remains limited. The FRI post (Kučinskas and Rosenberg, 10 Nov 2026, forecastingresearch.substack.com/p/how-close-is-recursive-self-improvement) confirms both halves: company-reported metrics (Anthropic >90% codebase contributions, Sept 2026; OpenAI 3.1 AI workdays per human workday, Aug 2026, up from ~0.5 in May) support "large and rapidly growing"; the same post says humans still supply most research judgment and cites Anthropic's own statement of persistent gaps in goal choice, InnovationEval and CRUX 2 failures, and METR acceleration estimates of ~1.5x (later ~2x). The canonical wording says "share of AI research and development", which a reader would most naturally take as share of the work done; on that reading the evidence favours the claim. The credence (0.75) discounts for self-reporting by interested parties, the narrowness to two labs, and the alternative contribution-weighted reading on which the claim is less clearly true. Not verified because evidence is not independently auditable. The search in this pass was limited to the one recorded source; a further pass could look for independent measurements (e.g. METR uplift studies) and Google DeepMind data.
Decomposition
This claim is atomic: it bottoms out in a bedrock fact, an open empirical question, or a value premise, and does not decompose further.
Provenance
Where this claim has been said, linked to its canonical form.
Its one source has been traced to an origin, or to one another.
The data reported by AI companies show that AI does a large and fast-growing share of AI R&D.
Section 1, citing company-reported data.
Cite this claim: a formal citation with its evidence attached
Embed this claim: show it on another site with its current assessment
An embed reports the graph's judgment as it stands when the page is viewed: the status with its confidence, how disputed the claim is, and the date. It links back here.
<blockquote class="minerval-claim" data-claim-id="a3a7a95b-f3fb-4cf8-a605-cbe3bee834db"><a href="https://minerval.ai/claims/a3a7a95b-f3fb-4cf8-a605-cbe3bee834db">AI systems perform a large and rapidly growing share of AI research and development at frontier labs.</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://minerval.ai/embed.js"></script>
<iframe src="https://minerval.ai/embed/claims/a3a7a95b-f3fb-4cf8-a605-cbe3bee834db" title="Minerval: AI systems perform a large and rapidly growing share of AI research and development at fr…" width="480" height="200" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
[](https://minerval.ai/claims/a3a7a95b-f3fb-4cf8-a605-cbe3bee834db)
The badge now: 
Contribute
Every judgment on this page is open to challenge. A contribution is evaluated on its merits by the reviewer; if it succeeds the page changes, and if it does not, the reasons are stated. Either way the exchange becomes part of the claim’s public record.
Stated views None yet. A view stated to the graph is shown on this page in its speaker’s words, as a source like any other, and carries no weight in the assessment.
The attention this claim received was paid for by a funded mandate. Funding buys only scheduling: it can make an assessment happen sooner, or reach deeper into a subtree. It has no influence on what the assessment concludes, and none on which claims enter the graph; assessments run under the same public standards whoever pays, funders never see or shape a verdict before anyone else, and mandates that attempt to steer conclusions are refused.
Created by extractor · Nov 14, 2026. Every judgment on this page is accompanied by a reasoning trace.