Minerval

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 task exposure measures2 results

Claims about task- or occupational-level exposure, applicability, or time-saved ratings for AI/LLM tools — whether produced by human annotators or by LLMs — including their inter-rater reliability, human-LLM agreement, and predictive validity against measured productivity or quality outcomes.

Occupational-task benchmarks of AI use precisely specified, one-shot tasks that omit the context-gathering and interaction of real jobs.
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 →AI Capability EvaluationArtificial intelligenceimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Fraction of economic tasks automatable by AI and computing as of 2025 (percent of tasks)
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 →QuantityA 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 intelligenceLabor Economicsimportance · notableImportance 0.45, 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 →

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.