trailCalendar year in which artificial general intelligence is first developed
Argument from capability trend extrapolation
The task-completion time horizon of frontier AI models began growing faster around 2024.
≈ 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
◌
◌
◌
≈ 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
METR's apparent post-2024 time-horizon acceleration reflects measurement artifacts rather than faster AI capability growth.
Benchmarks beyond METR's software suite show AI time horizons or capabilities growing faster since 2024.
+1
≈ 2030
Calendar year when an AI company first internally develops an AI that can do any coding task its best engineer can do, faster and cheaper
Time-horizon trends measured on benchmark software tasks generalize to real-world software work.
↑
↓
◌
Argument from aggregate forecasts and slipping aggressive timelines
The AI 2027 scenario underestimates the time remaining before general intelligence arrives.
The AI 2027 authors' median forecast placed superhuman AI coding ability after 2027.
AI systems will attain superhuman coding ability by 2027.
assumed
Artificial general intelligence has an agreed definition that settles when it has been achieved.
assumed
Surveyed AI researchers' aggregate forecasts are a reliable guide to when AI will reach human-level performance
quantity · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →quantity page ↗︎
Calendar year in which artificial general intelligence is first developed
≈ 203485% interval 2027 to 2070, with a 7% chance that AGI in the strong sense is not developed this century, or ever
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.