It’s starting…
Credibility score: 46/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "It’s starting…" and rated it 46/100 for credibility (a BS score of 54/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-05. Its weakest claim — "Anthropic has been secretly using unreleased 'Mythos' model since Q1" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as sketchy. 27 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Anthropic says AI self-building means slow development because society isn't ready — Opinion (50/100)
Calls the 'slow down' plea self-serving right after quoting Anthropic — no receipts yet, just the jab.
AI will soon build its own successor systems autonomously — Opinion (50/100)
Calls it a clear trend but admits recursive self-improvement isn't inevitable yet — hedging before the pitch lands.
Predicts AI agents will soon build and train their own models, closing the loop on Claude improving itself — Dubious (35/100)
Recursive self-improvement is still sci-fi territory — current agents can't train frontier models.
Once recursive self-improvement arrives, humans are removed and compute becomes the sole bottleneck — Opinion (50/100)
Assumes full automation of AI R&D is imminent and removes every human role — that's still science fiction, not engineering.
Digital Ocean is a genetic inference cloud — Sponsored (50/100)
Said 'genetic inference cloud' — that’s not what DigitalOcean does.
AI agent task length doubling every 4 months, acceleration accelerating — Dubious (45/100)
Anthropic said tasks are getting longer — speaker turned that into 'acceleration accelerating.'
Hints of recursive self-improvement already visible — Opinion (50/100)
Anthropic explicitly said it’s not here — speaker still calls the current signals 'hints.'
Claude Opus 3 handled 4-minute human software tasks in March 2024 — OK (60/100)
The 4-minute figure is from Anthropic’s own internal eval — real but narrow.
AI task length jumped from 4 min → 90 min → 12 hours in 3 years — Dubious (45/100)
No public benchmarks show Opus 4.6 or Sonnet 3.7 hitting those exact time horizons — numbers appear made up.
AI paper reproduction jumped from 20% in 2024 to nearly 100% now — Dubious (45/100)
No public benchmark or paper shows 100% success on novel AI research reproduction — that number appears invented.
In AI, execution is now easy and ideas are the hard part — Opinion (50/100)
Classic "ideas are the bottleneck" take — sounds insightful until you remember most labs still struggle with both.
Claude now solves highly underspecified problems on its own — Opinion (50/100)
Sounds impressive until you realize he's still the one picking the problems.
80%+ of Anthropic's merged code written by Claude as of May 2026 — Unverifiable (50/100)
Internal company metric with zero public data — just taking their word for it.
Anthropic has been secretly using unreleased 'Mythos' model since Q1 — Sketchy (20/100)
Claims a hidden frontier model called Mythos that no one else has seen.
Anthropic banned XAI from using their models Jan 2026 — Unverifiable (50/100)
Story attributed to Kylie but no primary source or confirmation here.
Anthropic poll: 4x output but 8x code means AI code is half as valuable — Dubious (45/100)
Poll of 130 people is real but the 'half as valuable' math is pure assumption — no quality data given.
Claims AI code preview is 50% less productive than humans — Unverifiable (50/100)
Drops the '50% less productive' number with zero source or study attached
AI writes 8x code so you need 8x reviewers — Sketchy (30/100)
Assumes linear 1:1 review scaling — ignores AI review tools and smarter processes.
Claude-written code was worse than human code in late 2025, now at par, will beat humans soon — Opinion (50/100)
Staff "believe" AI code quality is catching up — that's a vibe check, not a benchmark.
Mythos preview hit 52x speedup vs Opus 4's 3x one year earlier — Unverifiable (50/100)
52x vs 3x sounds dramatic but no public benchmark or paper backs those exact numbers.
Claude AI improved from 22% to 64% on experiment decisions since March 2024 — Unverifiable (50/100)
No public benchmarks or papers exist for "Claude Mythos preview" — that name doesn't match released models.
AI now handles execution so ideas become the scarce valuable part — Opinion (50/100)
Classic pivot: used to be execution was everything, now AI flips it so the idea is king — neat framing but still just speculation.
Even without AI taste, human prompting will create compounding acceleration — Opinion (50/100)
Assumes prompting alone multiplies output forever — no proof the bottleneck stays human.
100-person AI company equals 10k-100k person org — Dubious (45/100)
Said 100 people replace 100,000 — no data shows that ratio anywhere yet.
Energy owners at RSI moment freeze society in place forever — Sketchy (35/100)
Assumes whoever holds energy infrastructure at one instant locks out everyone else — real grids and markets don't work that way.
Anthropic publicly says AI development should slow down — Opinion (50/100)
They frame it as safety concern while sitting in first place — classic frontrunner logic.
Calls Anthropic's pause essay pure fear-based self-promotion — Opinion (50/100)
Calls their essay fear-based marketing — when the actual text was just one conditional sentence about pausing.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →