AI wasn't overhyped. Almost everyone underestimated it
Comments on “AI wasn't overhyped. Almost everyone underestimated it”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
Benjamin Todd revisits his March 2025 forecast that AGI could arrive by 2030 and finds that AI progress has outpaced most expert and public predictions over the past 18 months.
Why it ranked
No. 108 of 155 with a score of 0.58. The panel rated it highest on audience breadth (0.81) and reader interest (0.77), lowest on technical depth (0.35). Overclaim counted against it (0.55). The judges disagreed most on new information (spread 0.48), so the story is marked contested.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- A long AI forecasting retrospective on AI progress versus predictions; on-topic and widely relevant, with forecasting-accuracy evidence but limited technical depth and some unverifiable claims.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A timely, consequential synthesis of AI forecasting evidence, benchmarks, economics, and safety implications. Its breadth and many links add value, but several extraordinary claims rely on self-reporting, unclear methodology, or insufficiently verifiable evidence, producing substantial overclaim risk.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.58total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.48 on new information, 0.47 on overclaim
- Significance0.65
- Reader interest0.77
- Audience breadth0.81
- Practical relevance0.53
- Substantiated0.58
- Technical depth0.35
- New information0.77
- Counts against: Promotional0.14
- Counts against: Overclaim0.55
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.23 | +0.24 | +0.156 |
| Reader interest | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.20 | +0.26 | +0.201 |
| Audience breadth | 0.92 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.22 | +0.13 | +0.106 |
| Practical relevance | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.68 | 0.53 | 0.23 | +0.22 | +0.117 |
| Substantiated | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.52 | 0.58 | 0.10 | +0.05 | +0.029 |
| Technical depth | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.18 | +0.05 | +0.018 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.45 | 0.93 | 0.77 | 0.48 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.038 |
| Promotional | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.23 | −0.19 | −0.027 |
| Overclaim | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.47 , above the contested threshold | −0.11 | −0.061 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.578 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.578 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/108/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/108.svg" alt="Ranked #108 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="252" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.