AI Could Outforecast Humans by 2027

Artificial intelligence could finally be coming for CNN pundit panels.

Metaculus announced its Future Eval tool to track how well AI models perform on its forecasting platform on Monday. Future Eval benchmarks popular AI models alongside the Metaculus community of users and handpicked superforecasters.

The trendline indicates that AI bots could outperform Metaculus users by April 2026 and the platform’s superforecasters by June 2027.

5/ We calculate pro and community baselines using all questions where both humans and bots forecasted, from the first forecast of our first AI model to today.

The trend line tells the story: bots could be on track to surpass Metaculus community performance in April 2026 and… pic.twitter.com/4Ka5SuYG6s

— Metaculus (@metaculus) February 16, 2026

As Metaculus holds more contests between AI bots and human forecasters, the field could inch closer to introducing autonomous prediction market traders. Those bots could trade separately from human users, in contrast to algorithmic trading bots directed by professional traders.

Meanwhile, prediction markets enjoyed their latest victory in the wake of a major Supreme Court decision on Friday.

No surprises in Kalshi’s SCOTUS market

Kalshi’s market on whether the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Trump’s tariffs resolved to No on Friday. The Supreme Court found Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision, arguing that Trump’s emergency powers did not allow him to take the power to tax from Congress.

Kalshi’s odds on a favorable ruling fell sharply after oral arguments on Nov. 5, 2025. The odds went from 45% to 20% in two days, then largely traded in the 20s and 30s until the opinion’s release.

The Supreme Court ruling market had $5.5 million in trade volume, and the market on how many justices would rule in favor of Trump’s tariffs generated $1.5 million in trade volume.

Kalshi also received good legal news from its state case in Tennessee.

Kalshi breaks its state losing streak

Kalshi won a preliminary injunction (PI) in Tennessee on Thursday, the first since losing PI motions in Massachusetts and Nevada. The Tennessee case turned on whether sports contracts were swaps, a favorable line of questioning for Kalshi.

Kalshi argued that sports contracts are swaps, which are under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Swaps have a broad definition. They can encompass agreements “dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.”

Courts have taken two divergent paths in deciding prediction market cases. NJ and TN (both Kalshi wins) have focused narrowly on whether sports contracts are “swaps.” MA and MD (both state wins) focused more broadly on “congressional intent” as the touchstone. NV combines both.

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) February 20, 2026

Massachusetts and Nevada state judges focused on congressional intent. They argued that Congress did not intend to allow sports contracts to work around state gaming laws. Similar differences at the Circuit level will increase the odds of a Supreme Court hearing on the jurisdiction over event contracts.