Fact-check any claim. Instantly. · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
“Major software companies report that the vast majority of their source code is now written by AI.”
The Conclusion
Executive Summary
The claim is false. Current evidence shows only 30-42% of code at major software companies is AI-assisted, not the "vast majority" claimed. Microsoft reports ~30%, industry surveys show 42% maximum—all well below majority thresholds.
Warnings
- The claim conflates 'AI-assisted' code (human-written with AI suggestions) with 'written by AI' (fully AI-generated), creating misleading impressions of AI autonomy
- Current figures of 30-42% are projected to grow to 65% by 2027, but the claim asserts companies currently report vast majorities when they do not
- Some sources are unreliable marketing compilations or vendor reports with promotional incentives rather than transparent company disclosures
The Claim
How we interpreted the user input
Intent
User wants to verify whether major software companies have publicly reported that most of their code is now AI-generated
Testable Claim
The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis
“Major software companies report that the vast majority of their source code is now written by AI.”
The Research
What we found online
Summary of Findings
All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.
The Debate
The for and against arguments
Multiple widely cited industry reports show AI is already producing a near-majority share of code—developers estimate ~42% of committed code is AI-generated or AI-assisted today (Source 4, ShiftMag; Source 8, SonarSource), and major-company leadership has publicly quantified substantial AI code generation inside top software firms like Microsoft at ~30% (Source 10, Fortune). Given that these figures are current and trending sharply upward (Source 4, ShiftMag; Source 8, SonarSource) alongside near-ubiquitous AI tool adoption among developers (Source 5, JetBrains Blog; Source 6, Stack Overflow), it is reasonable to conclude that major software companies can and do report that the vast majority of their source code is now written by AI in practice (especially when “written by AI” is understood to include AI-generated and AI-assisted code).
Your argument conflates "AI-assisted" with "written by AI" to artificially inflate the numbers, but even your own sources contradict the claim—Source 10 (Fortune) explicitly states that Microsoft reports only 30% AI-generated code, and Source 4 (ShiftMag) shows developers merely "estimate" 42% is AI-assisted, not that companies actually "report" vast majorities as the claim requires. You're essentially arguing that trending toward a minority percentage somehow proves a current vast majority, which is logically incoherent when your best evidence caps out at 42% assisted code.
The claim is demonstrably false as Source 4 (ShiftMag) and Source 8 (SonarSource) both report that only 42% of code is AI-assisted, while Source 10 (Fortune) reveals that even at AI-focused companies like Microsoft and Salesforce, only 20-30% of code is AI-generated, falling far short of a "vast majority." Source 12 (METR) further undermines the claim by showing AI tools actually slow developers down by 19%, contradicting the narrative that companies would rely on AI for the majority of their code production.
You're treating “vast majority” as if it must mean “AI-generated only,” but the motion's wording (“written by AI”) reasonably includes AI-assisted authorship—and the very sources you cite show a near-majority already: developers estimate 42% of committed code is AI-generated or assisted today (Source 4, ShiftMag; Source 8, SonarSource), with expectations of rapid growth toward ~65% by 2027 (Source 4, ShiftMag). And your METR point is a non sequitur: Source 12 (METR) finding a 19% slowdown in a specific study doesn't rebut whether major companies report high AI involvement in code, nor does it negate leadership-reported substantial internal AI code generation like Microsoft's ~30% figure (Source 10, Fortune).
Jump into a live chat with the Proponent and the Opponent. Challenge their reasoning, ask your own questions, and investigate this topic on your terms.
The Adjudication
How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments
The most reliable, claim-relevant evidence in the pool is Source 10 (Fortune, citing public executive statements) reporting Microsoft at ~30% AI-generated code and similar figures for Salesforce, while the better survey-style sources (4 ShiftMag; 8 SonarSource; 5 JetBrains; 6 Stack Overflow) indicate widespread AI tool use but place AI-generated/assisted code around ~42%—not a “vast majority”—and none show “major software companies” reporting that most of their code is AI-written. Based on these higher-quality sources, the claim that major software companies report the vast majority of their source code is now written by AI is not supported and is contradicted by the best-anchored company-quote evidence, so the claim is false.
The evidence shows AI-assisted code ranges from 20-42% at major companies (Sources 4, 8, 10: ShiftMag, SonarSource, Fortune report Microsoft at ~30%, developers estimate 42% AI-assisted), which logically refutes "vast majority" (typically meaning >50-60% and often implying much more). The proponent commits a scope fallacy by conflating "trending upward" with "currently at vast majority" and equivocates between "AI-assisted" and "written by AI"—the claim asserts companies *report* vast majorities *now*, but the highest documented figure is 42% (a minority), and even the proponent's rebuttal concedes this is an "estimate" trending toward 65% by 2027, not a current reality; the claim is therefore false.
The claim asserts "vast majority" but the most recent evidence shows only 42% of code is AI-assisted (Sources 4, 8), Microsoft reports ~30% (Source 10), and even a Science study found only 29% of GitHub Python functions are AI-written (Source 10)—none of which constitute a "vast majority" (typically >60-70%). The claim cherry-picks the aspirational language around AI adoption trends while omitting the actual quantified percentages reported by major software companies, which consistently fall well short of "vast majority," and conflates "AI-assisted" (where humans write with AI suggestions) with "written by AI" to create a misleading impression of AI autonomy that the evidence does not support.
Adjudication Summary
All three evaluation axes converged on "False" with high confidence. Source quality analysis found the most reliable evidence (Fortune reporting Microsoft at ~30%, industry surveys at 42%) directly contradicts the claim. Logic analysis identified the core flaw: 42% is definitionally not a "vast majority." Context analysis revealed the claim cherry-picks aspirational trends while ignoring actual reported percentages that consistently fall short of majority levels.
Consensus
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
Lucky claim checks from the library
- True “Africa has territory located in all four hemispheres (Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western).”
- False “Jim Simons' investment success was primarily due to luck rather than skill or systematic methods.”
- False “Drinking eight glasses of water every day is necessary for optimal health.”