Claim

In the Moonshots New Year's predictions episode at the end of 2025, Alexander Wissner-Gross predicted that AI would solve one of the Clay Millennium Prize problems during 2026.

Type HISTORICAL · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 1883

28 words; atomic claims are usually under 25

Referenced 109 times: checked 2, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 87, shared 20. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

AI · 03192ed8 Mathematics · 03192ed8

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9654 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 2 counted

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 2 of 4 · stability HIGH

Main unresolved issue: 5 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:3dd6fbed-2668-8112-91f8-93f8d9e3daca

Not yet independently audited.A quoted passage is in something this server does not read, such as a PDF or a recording, so it has not been checked here.

Why?

Strongest counted support: Impact Lab's December 2025 assessment attributes to Alex Wissner-Gross a prediction that AI would solve one of the remaining Clay Millennium Prize problems in 2026, likely Navier–Stokes. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly states that in the New Year's predictions episode at the end of 2025, one prediction for 2026 was that AI would solve one of the Clay Millennium Prize problems.

Review gaps: independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans supported.

Hide calculation

0.9654 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 2 of 4 · stability HIGH · 5 sources, 2 independent lineages

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:49a296efc97aa9e345010c5a792e23eeee3063ab496feb9dac4195f50db201fc

Last changed at entry seq 10567; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

Link	Working	Weight	Counted as
7d320244 qualify	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance SELF 0.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	0.000000	0.000000 (non directional)
8e7f7dc1 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.530000	1.530000
fb25d7ba support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance SELF 0.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	0.000000	0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept 42178e48)
83520406 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000
42178e48 support	relevance MODERATE 0.6 × observation EYEWITNESS 0.4 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance SELF 0.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	0.000000	0.000000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 3.330000 (the counted weights) = 3.330000 → probability 0.9654

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.9114 to 0.9870, a spread of 0.0756.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

“In the Moonshots New Year's predictions episode at the end of 2025, Alexander Wissner-Gross predicted that AI would solve one of the Clay Millennium Prize...” · 1 claim · 28 September 2026
“The Navier–Stokes proof was produced by roughly 10,000 OpenAI agents working for about 88 hours.” · 34 claims · 20 September 2026

Evidence for

Wissner-Gross says he predicted an AI Millennium Prize solution in the 2025 predictions episode.

From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance MODERATE Steps 1 Counted

The speaker recalling his own earlier prediction; the episode itself is not cited.
The excerpt directly states that in the New Year's predictions episode at the end of 2025, one prediction for 2026 was that AI would solve one of the Clay Millennium Prize problems.

From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted
Impact Lab's December 2025 assessment attributes to Alex Wissner-Gross a prediction that AI would solve one of the remaining Clay Millennium Prize problems in 2026, likely Navier–Stokes.

From Assessing the Moonshots 2026 Predictions: Bold Calls or Overreach? Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The source directly supports the prediction's substance and timing, though it is a secondary assessment rather than the original Moonshots recording.
In the end-of-2025 predictions episode, Alexander Wissner-Gross predicted AI would solve one of the remaining Clay Millennium Prize problems in 2026.

From 2026 Predictions: AI Automates Knowledge Work, Autonomous Robots & AI CEO Billionaires | EP #217 Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

The video transcript directly states the prediction; it does not assess whether the 2026 prediction ultimately occurred.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

The passage confirms the 2025 New Year's prediction that AI would solve a Clay Millennium Prize problem this year, but names neither Moonshots nor Wissner-Gross.

From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

Prediction, episode, and timing match; speaker and show names are absent.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
96030cbb		42178e48

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 2 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	yes	5f53e415
opposing search done	yes	990b9876
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	no

Summary

Supported. The main support is: In the end-of-2025 predictions episode, Alexander Wissner-Gross predicted AI would solve one of the remaining Clay Millennium Prize problems in 2026. ddf18aae

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 96030cbb

Qualifier: The passage confirms the 2025 New Year's prediction that AI would solve a Clay Millennium Prize problem this year, but names neither Moonshots nor Wissner-Gross. b98c0dc4

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. 990b9876

Review checks: 2 of 4. coverage:3dd6fbed-2668-8112-91f8-93f8d9e3daca

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
1883	APPENDED
1884	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
2081	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
6556	TASK_RESULT	by 8b5e81bf (accepted)
8150	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
9882	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
10566	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "3dd6fbed-2668-8112-91f8-93f8d9e3daca",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "0a6ee99d-3d2a-8753-84e9-73ed7d320244",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "non_directional",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "8e80c2a9-3768-83c6-b99d-de5cb98c0dc4",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "magnitude": "0.000000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "SELF",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "VIDEO",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    },
    {
      "link": "5ab540cc-8822-8e7b-9b12-f8ab8e7f7dc1",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "a20f34d3-5aed-8dc6-b499-87e2ddf18aae",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.530000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "VIDEO",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.530000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    },
    {
      "kept": "c920b685-26a0-8fe9-b083-baee42178e48",
      "link": "5e2f2130-c9d0-8e89-bb14-6712fb25d7ba",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "7691a720-2e2d-86f3-8c12-a76696030cbb",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "0.000000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "SELF",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "VIDEO",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    },
    {
      "link": "8883a342-8890-87b5-aa15-281083520406",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "69300495-8ba2-891c-b42a-736e5edf3299",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "SECONDARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "c920b685-26a0-8fe9-b083-baee42178e48",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "50f5f7ed-8a50-8629-9c14-d54b185dda0f",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "0.000000",
      "relevance": "MODERATE",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "SELF",
      "observation": "EYEWITNESS",
      "source_type": "VIDEO",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.0756",
    "permissive": "0.9870",
    "conservative": "0.9114"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "HIGH",
  "claim_type": "HISTORICAL",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.9654",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "3.330000",
  "snapshot_seq": 10567,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 2,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.50",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "01a0bc50-b1ce-7406-88ad-97105f53e415"
      ],
      "ok": true
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [
        "01a0bc50-b1b5-79be-95b0-df87990b9876"
      ],
      "ok": true
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "3.330000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 5
}