Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
76 69 82 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
56 42 70 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 4 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 72 (likely 66 to 78, high confidence), from 93 claims: 76 factual claims, 17 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Dario Amodei's claims
12 claims
“It’s easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we’ve repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years.”
Dario Amodei, Anthropic CEO, on X 23 September 2026 Post by @DarioAmodei on X, 2026-09-23 (X)
AI performance in new intellectual domains has repeatedly gone from weak to superhuman within a few years.
Mixed Partly true and partly false in roughly equal measure.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2026-09-23. True: documented benchmark or competition history shows several (at least three or so) distinct intellectual domains where AI went from clearly weak (well below average human expert) to superhuman (beating top humans) within a few years, i.e. about 2–5 years (e.g. Go, competitive programming, math olympiad problems or other domains). Mostly true: the pattern holds repeatedly but some cases took somewhat longer than 'a few years' or reached top-expert level rather than clearly superhuman. Mixed: only one or two clear cases fit, with others still sub-human or taking much longer. Mostly false: there are isolated examples, but most domains cited show slow progress or have not reached superhuman level. False: no domain shows this weak-to-superhuman transition within a few years.
Evidence
- AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 9 March 2016
“Computer programs Zen and Crazy Stone had previously defeated 9 dan professional players only with large handicaps of four or five stones.”
- AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 9 March 2016
“AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol, also known as the DeepMind Challenge Match, was a five-game Go match between top Go player Lee Sedol and AlphaGo, a computer Go program developed by DeepMind, played in Seoul, South Korea between the 9th and 15th of March 2016.”
- Advanced version of Gemini with Deep Think officially achieves gold-medal standard at the International Mathematical Olympiad Google DeepMind · 21 July 2025
“Last year, Google DeepMind’s combined AlphaProof and AlphaGeometry 2 systems achieved the silver-medal standard, solving four out of the six problems and scoring 28 points.”
- AI at the 2025 ICPC World Finals | AI Wiki AI Wiki (aiwiki.ai) · 8 June 2026
“The AI systems did not compete inside the official standings.”
- AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Wikipedia Wikipedia
“Computer programs Zen and Crazy Stone had previously defeated 9 dan professional players only with large handicaps of four or five stones.”
- AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Wikipedia Wikipedia
“AlphaGo defeated European champion Fan Hui, a 2 dan professional, 5–0 in October 2015, the first time an AI had beaten a human professional player at the game on a full-sized board without a handicap.”
- AI at the 2025 ICPC World Finals | AI Wiki AI Wiki (aiwiki.ai) · 8 June 2026
“In September 2025, at the 49th International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) World Finals in Baku, Azerbaijan, two leading artificial-intelligence laboratories reported that their general-purpose reasoning models reached or surpassed the level of the world's best university programming teams.”
- AI at the 2025 ICPC World Finals | AI Wiki AI Wiki (aiwiki.ai) · 8 June 2026
“Several commentators cautioned against reading the result as evidence that AI had broadly surpassed human programmers, as opposed to excelling at a specific, well-defined competitive format.”
- AlphaGo - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 27 January 2016
“In March 2016, it beat Lee Sedol in a five-game match, the first time a computer Go program has beaten a 9-dan professional without handicap.”
- AlphaGo - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 27 January 2016
“Almost two decades after IBM's computer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in the 1997 match, the strongest Go programs using artificial intelligence techniques only reached about amateur 5-dan level”
- Computer Go - Wikipedia Wikipedia
“Before 2015, programs were weak. The best efforts of the 1980s and 1990s produced only AIs that could be defeated by beginners, and AIs of the early 2000s were intermediate level at best.”
- OpenAI Five defeats Dota 2 world champions OpenAI · 15 April 2019
“OpenAI Five’s victories on Saturday, as compared to its losses at The International 2018, are due to a major change: 8x more training compute.”
Reasoning
Go is one clear case. Before 2015, Go programs were weak: about amateur 5-dan, and able to beat professionals only with large handicaps (E10, E11, E1). AlphaGo then beat a professional without handicap in October 2015 and beat top player Lee Sedol in March 2016 (E6, E9, E2). The other domains are only partly shown. At the math olympiad, AI went from silver-medal standard in 2024 to gold in 2025 (E3), which is top-expert level, not clearly superhuman, and no weak starting point is documented. In competitive programming, labs self-reported in 2025 that their models matched or beat the best ICPC teams, outside the official standings, with commentators urging caution and no earlier baseline given (E4, E7, E8). Dota 2 losses in 2018 followed by wins in 2019 (E12) do not show a clearly weak starting point. So the evidence shows one or two clear cases rather than a well-documented repeated pattern.
Cite this claim
Dario Amodei, “AI performance in new intellectual domains has repeatedly gone from weak to superhuman within a few years.” (said 23 September 2026). Verdict: mixed. Reliability API, claim c_bfc1b6e378b0, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_bfc1b6e378b0
Claims without a verdict
- Unresolvable 157
- Not yet due 40
- Own records only 43
- Not researched 134
- Not checkable 864
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Dario Amodei? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.