exploring accurate understanding crowdsourcing precise understanding calculating definitive predictions computing accurate estimations exploring quantitative insights composing quantitative estimations modeling calibrated forecasts composing calibrated contingencies modeling probable predictions predicting quantitative estimations mapping the future computing intelligent understanding calculating definitive estimations exploring quantitative predictions exploring contingent understanding crowdsourcing predictive predictions formulating intelligent futures predicting calibrated estimations computing predictive predictions delivering contingent futures mapping critical understanding forecasting intelligent futures mapping precise forecasts formulating calibrated estimations mapping probable insights computing precise estimations forecasting predictive futures assembling definitive insights


Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Date when AI outperforms humans on reasoning

Cross-posted on Metaculus.

Recent natural language processing (NLP) models have succeeded in generating human-level text and translations. However questions remain regarding to what extent this success relies on understanding, as opposed to memorization of statistical patterns.

A recent paper showed that when statistical-cues are removed, state of the art NLP models fail on argument reasoning tasks -- despite human performance remaining unaffected. Untrained humans perform at ~80% accuracy on this argument reasoning task, whereas recent NLP models perform near 50%.

When will a machine learning model out-perform the human-level of 80% accuracy on this benchmark? This question resolves when either:

  1. A paper posted on arxiv.org claims a greater than 80% accuracy on the Niven and Kao benchmark.
  2. A paper posted on arxiv.org claims a greater than 80% accuracy on a successor* dataset to the Niven and Kao data.

*A successor dataset will count towards this resolution criterion if it satisfies all of the following:

  1. Published in an arxiv.org pre-print intended to quantify argument and/or reasoning

  2. Cites Niven and Kao

  3. Pre-2020 NLP models show random-level performance on the dataset (<=60% accuracy for a binary task, <=100*(1/n+1/n/5)% for an n-ary task)

If the successor dataset includes information on human-level performance, that threshold will be used instead of the 80% accuracy threshold.


Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.