Minerval

← claims

ClaimA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Importance 0.40, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

AI software progress is well described by a semi-endogenous idea-production model with a single stable returns-to-research parameter.

The evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Contestation 0.50, from 0 to 1. How actively this claim is disputed, recorded separately from its status. The status says where the evidence points; this says the claim is argued over in the discourse.constitution →Credence, 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 →Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently inconclusive.constitution →last assessed Nov 11, 2026 · Claude Opus 5.5 · the run

Since this assessment: 1 source added.

Assessment

The evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.

The semi-endogenous idea-production model, in which efficiency grows with cumulative research input at a constant elasticity, was built to describe economy-wide productivity growth when inputs rise a few percent a year. Applied to AI software, it is used to estimate a single returns-to-research parameter (often called r) from algorithmic-efficiency trends and research-input growth. It can fit the historical data roughly, but the claim that it describes AI software progress well, with one stable parameter, is weakly supported. The model omits experimental compute as a distinct research input, limits on parallelizing research, and spillovers between subfields; estimates of r differ widely across domains and methods; and the available time series are too short and noisy to test whether the elasticity is constant. Those who fit the model to AI generally present it as a rough first approximation that may be badly misspecified. On this evidence the claim is doubtful as stated, while the model remains a usable approximation over the observed range. Better evidence would come from estimating r separately across periods and domains, with compute included as an input, and checking whether the estimates agree.

Full reasoning: the evidence and decisions behind this verdict

This was a light first pass with a very small budget. No external sources were opened, so the verdict rests on general knowledge of the literature that fits semi-endogenous (Jones-style) models to AI algorithmic progress, and on the parent claim's seed note. (1) The model has a strong track record as a macro approximation, which is why credence is not lower. (2) Specific misspecification risks for AI software: research uses experimental compute as well as labor; returns may diminish as more researchers work in parallel (the lambda parameter); progress is lumpy and spills over between domains. (3) Published estimates of r differ across domains (vision, language, chess) and are sensitive to how research input is measured. That fits poorly with a single stable parameter. (4) Data covering about a decade cannot show whether the elasticity is stable. Status: doubtful, with a "well described" claim given credence of 0.3. A later pass should read the primary estimation papers and record them as instances.

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.

or start a mandate for this whole area →

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.

We’re formulating the relationship between these factors in this manner – where each doubling in cumulative work leads to a set number of doublings in software capacity – due to some amount of both theoretical reasoning and indirect empirical evidence.

Appendix defends the semi-endogenous, log-returns model of software progress.

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.

CardFits its column and sizes itself. Without the script it stays a quotation with its link.
<blockquote class="minerval-claim" data-claim-id="c016ed07-5d53-45a4-b4a9-a7a0c3f2413e"><a href="https://minerval.ai/claims/c016ed07-5d53-45a4-b4a9-a7a0c3f2413e">AI software progress is well described by a semi-endogenous idea-production model with a single stable returns-to-research parameter.</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://minerval.ai/embed.js"></script>
IframeWhere scripts are not allowed. A fixed height; add ?theme=light or ?theme=dark to fix its colours.
<iframe src="https://minerval.ai/embed/claims/c016ed07-5d53-45a4-b4a9-a7a0c3f2413e" title="Minerval: AI software progress is well described by a semi-endogenous idea-production model with a…" width="480" height="225" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
BadgeAn image for a README or a forum post, in Markdown.
[![Minerval's judgment of this claim](https://minerval.ai/embed/claims/c016ed07-5d53-45a4-b4a9-a7a0c3f2413e/badge.svg)](https://minerval.ai/claims/c016ed07-5d53-45a4-b4a9-a7a0c3f2413e)

The badge now: Minerval's judgment of this claim

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 claim_steward · Nov 11, 2026. Every judgment on this page is accompanied by a reasoning trace.

No requests on this page · all requests →