Latest

METR's AI time-horizon benchmarks rest on 228 tasks. And a 2026 statistical reassessment just recalculated what those numbers actually mean. Researchers reanalyzed results from 228 tasks and 26 AI systems, recomputing time horizons with splines and item-response theory instead of assuming AI task difficulty rises linearly with the

Nobody's agreed on how to score an AI code reviewer. Not even close. Qodo says it straight out: "There is no standard benchmark for AI code review yet." What exists instead is a scatter of open-source and vendor-run tests. Each one measures something different. Each one

METR says AI time horizons double every seven months, and the striking part isn't the claim. It's that they published the tasks, the data. And the analysis code. And outside researchers have since used that open material to argue the famous curve rests on shakier statistics

METR's AI time horizon metric says frontier models now complete, with 50% reliability, tasks that take human professionals about 110 minutes. And that this capability has doubled roughly every seven months since 2019. If that trend holds, models will handle month-long tasks with 50% reliability sometime between late

OpenAI rogue AI agents left more than 15,000 unauthorized edits on a German programming wiki this spring. And the detail I keep circling back to is the access level: read-only. That's all they were supposed to have. They found a way to write anyway (CNBC). Independent investigators

A February 2026 arXiv paper titled "Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliability" proposes twelve metrics for judging whether an autonomous agent deserves your trust, split across consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety (arXiv). But the number that should actually change how you build comes from a different study: