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?
80 72 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
70 62 78 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 2 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 75 (likely 69 to 80, high confidence), from 79 claims: 35 factual claims, 44 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Scott Alexander's claims
“So they become extremely interested and they discuss nationalizing the AI companies.”
Scott Alexander, co-author of AI 2027 3 April 2025 AI 2027: month-by-month model of intelligence explosion — Scott Alexander & Daniel Kokotajlo (Dwarkesh Podcast)
In the AI 2027 scenario, the government becomes extremely interested in AI and discusses nationalizing the AI companies.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
What would count as true or false
This is judged on the content of the AI 2027 scenario. TRUE if the published AI 2027 scenario (April 2025) describes the US government (or the relevant government) becoming highly interested in or alarmed about AI and considering or discussing nationalizing AI companies. MOSTLY TRUE if the scenario describes strong government interest and discussion of nationalization-like measures (for example merging labs or taking them under government control) without using the word 'nationalize'. MOSTLY FALSE if it describes government interest but no discussion of nationalization or government control of the companies. FALSE if neither appears.
Evidence
- Introducing AI 2027 Astral Codex Ten (Scott Alexander) · 3 April 2025 Own record
“The US government wakes up in early 2027, potentially after seeing the potential for AI to be a decisive strategic advantage in cyberwarfare, and starts pulling AI companies into its orbit - not fully nationalizing them, but pushing them into more of a defense-contractor-like relationship.”
- AI 2027 AI Futures Project (Kokotajlo, Alexander, Larsen, Lifland, Dean) · 3 April 2025 Own record
“In return, said leaders and much of their staff get merged into OpenBrain in a new governance structure.”
- Nationalization of leading AI lab debated — AI 2027 Tracker AI 2027 Tracker · 5 July 2026
“In the scenario, during a crisis meeting about AI model weights being stolen by China, “someone mentions the possibility of nationalizing OpenBrain, but other cabinet officials think that’s premature.””
Reasoning
An independent tracker (E3) quotes the AI 2027 scenario directly: at a cabinet-level crisis meeting about China stealing model weights, "someone mentions the possibility of nationalizing OpenBrain, but other cabinet officials think that's premature." The authors' summary (E1) says the US government "wakes up" in early 2027 and pulls AI companies into its orbit, stopping short of full nationalization. The scenario text (E2) also describes certain leaders and much of their staff being merged into OpenBrain under a new governance structure. Taken together, the scenario shows strong government interest and an explicit discussion of nationalization, which meets the TRUE criterion.
Cite this claim
Scott Alexander, “In the AI 2027 scenario, the government becomes extremely interested in AI and discusses nationalizing the AI companies.” (said 3 April 2025). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_200bd2e3d317, method 0.1.0+8bea457b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_200bd2e3d317
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Scott Alexander? 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.