Browse
Claims
Search the graph by meaning. Each result carries its current verdict; open one to see its decomposition, provenance, and the reasoning behind the assessment.
KindShowingImportancePrizesTopicAI Coding Capability
Claims about AI systems' ability or projected ability to write, understand, debug, and develop software, including comparisons with human programmers. Excludes methods for evaluating these abilities and effects of coding tools on human developer productivity.
AI agents’ 50%-reliability software-task horizon will continue doubling approximately every seven months.
DoubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →AI Agent ReliabilityAI Capability EvaluationLLM capability trendsimportance · notableImportance 0.60, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
AI agents' success on real-world software tasks judged by maintainer review improves at a similar rate to their benchmark success.
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →AI Coding BenchmarksAgentic coding toolsimportance · notableImportance 0.50, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
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
≈ 2030QuantityA quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →Artificial intelligenceimportance · majorImportance 0.75, from 0 to 1 · major: real consequence within a domain, actively argued. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
AI systems will attain superhuman coding ability by 2027.
DoubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Artificial intelligenceimportance · notableImportance 0.60, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
The AI 2027 authors' median forecast placed superhuman AI coding ability after 2027.
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 →empirical · verifiableA factual claim that could be checked directly against observation or primary records.constitution →Artificial intelligenceimportance · minorImportance 0.30, 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 →
Contribute
If a claim here is wrong, or missing evidence, open it: every claim page carries its own entry for challenges, evidence, and corrections. If the graph is missing a claim or a question entirely, propose it below. A proposal is reviewed on its wording; accepted proposals are matched against the graph before they enter it.