His prediction was about all code, not Anthropicâs code, so his prediction is still false. The article incorrectly states in the italicized section under the title (I believe itâs called the deck) the prediction was about Anthropicâs code, but this is what he said in March 2025:
I think we will be there in three to six months, where AI is writing 90% of the code. And then, in 12 months, we may be in a world where AI is writing essentially all of the code
There was no qualifier that this was only about Anthropicâs code. Itâs about all code.
Iâll be blunt: I think Dario saying âSome people think that prediction is wrongâ is dishonest. If you make a prediction and itâs wrong, you should just admit that itâs wrong.
But now, getting to the job side of this, I do have a fair amount of concern about this. On one hand, I think comparative advantage is a very powerful tool. If I look at coding, programming, which is one area where AI is making the most progress, what we are finding is we are not far from the worldâI think weâll be there in three to six monthsâwhere AI is writing 90 percent of the code. And then in twelve months, we may be in a world where AI is writing essentially all of the code. But the programmer still needs to specify what the conditions of what youâre doing are, what the overall app youâre trying to make is, what the overall design decision is. How do we collaborate with other code thatâs been written? How do we have some common sense on whether this is a secure design or an insecure design? So as long as there are these small pieces that a programmer, a human programmer, needs to do, the AI isnât good at, I think human productivity will actually be enhanced. But on the other hand, I think that eventually all those little islands will get picked off by AI systems. And then we will eventually reach the point where the AIs can do everything that humans can. And I think that will happen in every industry.
For what itâs worth at the time I thought he was talking about code at Anthropic, and another commenter agreed. The âwe are findingâ indicates to me that itâs at Anthropic. Claude 4.5 Sonnet disagree with me and says that it can be read as being about the entire world.
(I really hope youâre right and the entire AI industry goes up in flames next year.)
To me, that quote really sounds like itâs about code in general, not code at Anthropic.
Darioâs own interpretation of the prediction, even now that itâs come false, seems to be about code in general, based on this defense:
I made this prediction that, you know, in six months, 90% of code would be written by AI models. Some people think that prediction is wrong, but within Anthropic and within a number of companies that we work with, that is absolutely true now.
If the prediction was just about Anthropicâs code, youâd think he would just say:
I made this prediction that in six months 90% of Anthropicâs code would be written by AI and now within Anthropic that is absolutely true now.
What he actually said comes across as a defense of a prediction he knows was at least partially falsified or is at least in doubt. If he just meant 90% of Anthropicâs code would be written by AI, he could just say he was unambiguously right and thereâs no doubt about it.
Edit:
To address the part of your comment that changed after you edited it, in my interpretation, âwe are findingâ just means âwe are learningâ or âwe are gaining information thatâ and is general enough that it doesnât by itself support any particular interpretation. For example, he could have said:
...what we are finding is we are not far from the worldâI think weâll be there in three to six monthsâwhere AI is writing 90 percent of grant applications.
I wouldnât interpret this to mean that Anthropic is writing any grant applications at all. My interpretation wouldnât be different with or without the âwhat we are findingâ part. If he just said, âI think we are not far from the world...â, to me, that would mean exactly the same thing.
His prediction was about all code, not Anthropicâs code, so his prediction is still false. The article incorrectly states in the italicized section under the title (I believe itâs called the deck) the prediction was about Anthropicâs code, but this is what he said in March 2025:
There was no qualifier that this was only about Anthropicâs code. Itâs about all code.
Iâll be blunt: I think Dario saying âSome people think that prediction is wrongâ is dishonest. If you make a prediction and itâs wrong, you should just admit that itâs wrong.
The relevant is this timestamp in an interview. Relevant part of the interview:
For what itâs worth at the time I thought he was talking about code at Anthropic, and another commenter agreed. The âwe are findingâ indicates to me that itâs at Anthropic. Claude 4.5 Sonnet disagree with me and says that it can be read as being about the entire world.
(I really hope youâre right and the entire AI industry goes up in flames next year.)
To me, that quote really sounds like itâs about code in general, not code at Anthropic.
Darioâs own interpretation of the prediction, even now that itâs come false, seems to be about code in general, based on this defense:
If the prediction was just about Anthropicâs code, youâd think he would just say:
I made this prediction that in six months 90% of Anthropicâs code would be written by AI and now within Anthropic that is absolutely true now.
What he actually said comes across as a defense of a prediction he knows was at least partially falsified or is at least in doubt. If he just meant 90% of Anthropicâs code would be written by AI, he could just say he was unambiguously right and thereâs no doubt about it.
Edit:
To address the part of your comment that changed after you edited it, in my interpretation, âwe are findingâ just means âwe are learningâ or âwe are gaining information thatâ and is general enough that it doesnât by itself support any particular interpretation. For example, he could have said:
...what we are finding is we are not far from the worldâI think weâll be there in three to six monthsâwhere AI is writing 90 percent of grant applications.
I wouldnât interpret this to mean that Anthropic is writing any grant applications at all. My interpretation wouldnât be different with or without the âwhat we are findingâ part. If he just said, âI think we are not far from the world...â, to me, that would mean exactly the same thing.