Will the growth rate of conceptual AI insights remain linear in 2019?

Your submission is now in Draft mode. Once it's ready, please submit your draft for review by our team of Community Moderators. Thank you!


This question is related to others on algorithmic progress, including:


Algorithmic progress is one of the key drivers of AI progress, together with access to compute and data. However, its determinants are less well-understood.

Research organisation The Median Group has compiled empirical data on the growth of conceptual insights over time.

The researchers listed insights that seemed “around the same order of significance or more significant than the insight of inventing LSTMs (given that RNNs were already invented)”. They gathered ~200 such insights throughout history, including things like:

  • Differential calculus (1669)
  • Convolutions (1754)
  • Poisson models (1860)
  • Partially observable MDPs (1965)
  • Q learning (1989)
  • Convolutional networks (1998)
  • Deep Q learning (2013)
  • GANs (2014)

...and much more.

Interestingly, there seems to be a linear trend in the growth of such insights since the 1940’s, with a mean of ~1.8/year and a standard deviation of 1.4/year.

Will this trend persist? We now ask:

Will the number of AI insights in 2019 be within one standard deviation of the linear trend (that is, between 1 and 3 inclusive) identified by the Median Group?


For resolution, assume that the authors of the original post will make an evaluation of 2019 progress, or give their approval to another evaluation [1]. We will try to make that happen (even in the case where it doesn’t, the conditional is certainly not weird enough to skew the prediction).

Otherwise, the question will resolve ambiguous.


Since 1943, there has been between 1 and 3 insights in ~68% of years. The last outliers were 0 insights in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2012, and >=4 insights in 1984 and 2016.

The original post can be found here.

This spreadsheet contains graphs and summary statistics of the data, as well as full bibliography for the 196 insights compiled by the authors.

1: There is of course some flexibility in which insights get included in the count, and this data is conditional on the interpretations of the original researchers. Nonetheless, the selection seems to have been decently rigorous, and having a question on this data seems far preferable to having no question on it. It seems to capture something important about algorithmic progress.

Make a Prediction


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.

Current points depend on your prediction, the community's prediction, and the result. Your total earned points are averaged over the lifetime of the question, so predict early to get as many points as possible! See the FAQ.

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.

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