Codebook, version 2

How each coded unit is coded. Written 2026-09-30 and revised 2026-10-01 (amendment A14) from docs/methodology-v2.md section 2, which is the authority; this file turns its rules into decisions with examples. Changes go in docs/amendments.md first.

Version 1 (the single stance code and the six-value question_frame) is retired. Rows coded under version 1 were recoded from their sources, not mapped (amendment A2).

About the examples. Examples marked constructed are invented to show a rule and must never be cited as quotes.

---

0. One unit, and how to read it

A unit is one statement by one speaker on one occasion. Code only what the quoted words and their immediate context say. Don't use what the speaker is known for, what they said elsewhere, or what the article around the quote implies.

Read the source, not just the stored quote. The stored quote (60 words or fewer) is evidence for the codes. If a code depends on a sentence outside the stored quote, either change the quote to include it or code unexpressed / ambiguous.

---

1. target_capability: what capability is the unit about?

code	the capability	typical words
conversation	passes as human in conversation	Turing test, can't tell it from a person
narrow_task	one specific task or domain	chess, driving, radiology, coding contests
broad_competence	most economically valuable or intellectual work; "AGI", "human-level AI" when used this way	AGI, human-level, do any job a person can
superintelligence	exceeds humans broadly	superintelligence, smarter than us at everything, the Singularity (when it means AI beyond humans)
si_assist	AI helps humans build AI	AI speeds up our researchers, copilots for ML engineers
si_research	AI does parts of AI research on its own	AI runs experiments, writes the training code, automated AI researcher for some tasks
si_modify	AI changes its own code or weights	rewrites itself, modifies its own weights
si_sustained	successive improvements with little human involvement	intelligence explosion, recursive self-improvement, "takeoff", each generation builds the next
none	no capability is claimed	a statement about the word "AGI", about hype, about policy with no capability in view

Choosing among them. Pick the capability the speaker's claim is about. If they name two (for example "human-level by 2029, Singularity by 2045"), code the one the unit leads with and record the other in definition_note.

The four self-improvement levels. Ask two questions in order:

1. Who does the improving? Humans with AI help → si_assist. The AI itself → go on.
2. How far does it go?
   • A part of the research pipeline, with humans still steering → si_research.
   • The system edits itself (its own code or weights) → si_modify.
   • Repeated rounds, each better system making the next, with little human role → si_sustained.

"Takeoff" and loose self-improvement words (ruling 12, A14). Code the lowest level the words support and set ambiguous: yes; put any speed the speaker gives ("slow", "fast", "gentle") in timeline_text. When the words don't say who does the improving (a bare "takeoff", "the AI will improve itself"), the lowest level is si_assist. Code si_sustained only when the words themselves describe repeated rounds with little human role ("each generation builds the next", "an intelligence explosion with no one in the loop"). The labels "recursive self-improvement" and "intelligence explosion" alone don't do that.

• Seed example, altman-2023-04: Altman told the New York Times it would be a "very slow takeoff". The words don't say who improves the systems or how, so target_capability: si_assist, ambiguous: yes, timeline_text: "very slow takeoff".

• Constructed: "Our engineers now write most of their code with model help." → si_assist.

• Constructed: "The model ran the ablation studies overnight without anyone." → si_research.

• Constructed: "Once a system can rewrite its own weights, all bets are off." → si_modify, present_capability: hypothetical.

• Constructed: "Each generation will design the next, faster than we can follow." → si_sustained.

---

2. frame_primary and frames_present: which questions does the unit raise?

code	the question
possibility	Can it be built at all, in principle?
timeline	When will it arrive?
capability_now	Is a current system already it, or close?
self_improvement	Can current or imminent systems improve themselves?
definition	What would count?
consequences	What happens if or when it arrives (risk, economy, society)?
governance	What should be done about it (regulation, pauses, safety work, coordination)?
other_concern	A different AI question leads: jobs, reliability, privacy, bias, misinformation, military, consciousness, ownership

• frame_primary is the question the unit leads with: what the speaker is mainly answering, usually what they were asked or what the headline claim is about.
• frames_present lists every question raised, separated by ;, and always includes frame_primary. A question counts as present when the unit raises it, whatever answer is given ("it's not close" raises capability_now).
• concern_tag is required when other_concern is present (one of jobs, reliability, privacy, bias, misinformation, military, consciousness, ownership, other), and blank otherwise.
• A unit framed as self-improvement should normally have an si_* target; if it doesn't, say why in notes.

Test for possibility against timeline: delete every date from the unit. If the claim still stands and is about whether it can be done, it's possibility.

---

3. endorsement: does the speaker endorse that the target capability will exist?

Endorsement is about the future: whether the capability will exist, ever or by the horizon the speaker names (ruling 9, A14). Whether it exists now is a different field, present_capability.

code	meaning
accepts	says it will happen (or has already happened). Needs "will", "expect", "I think", "predict", "going to", "almost certainly", a stated probability of 50% or more, a bet, "decades away", "at least N years", or a firm, unhedged first-person date ("I'm still saying 2029") (A14 rulings 10 and 11; A15 rulings 1, 5 and 6)
rejects	says it won't happen, ever or by the horizon given. "It isn't here yet" is not a rejection (ruling 9)
uncertain	explicitly says they don't know, gives a probability below 50%, or hedges the date with "may", "might" or "could" (ruling 10)
conditional	endorses it only if a stated condition holds ("if scaling continues", "if we solve X")
unexpressed	discusses it without taking a position

Silence is never acceptance. Endorsement is coded only from words the speaker actually said. Every code other than unexpressed needs an anchor: the exact words in the stored quote that carry the position, recorded in notes as basis: "<words copied from the quote>". scripts/validate.py checks that the anchor appears in the quote. If you can't point to such words, the code is unexpressed.

Rulings of 2026-10-01 (A14), with examples from the seed data:

• Not here yet (ruling 9). Denying that the capability exists now is present_capability: disputed. Endorsement then comes from what the speaker says about the future, or is unexpressed if they say nothing about it. Seed example, lecun-2017-02: "We're very far from having machines that can learn the most basic things about the world in the way humans and animals can do." This denies present capability and says nothing about whether such machines will come, so present_capability: disputed, endorsement: unexpressed (it was rejects before the ruling).
• Hedged dates (ruling 10). "May", "might" or "could" with a date is uncertain. Fill the timeline fields anyway and keep the hedge in timeline_text. When a hedge and an acceptance word govern the same date, the hedge decides (agent interpretation, noted in A14). Seed example, hinton-2023-06: "Now, I think we may be much closer, maybe only five years away from that." → endorsement: uncertain (basis "maybe only five years away"), timeline_type: qualitative, timeline_year: 2028 (computed: 2023 + 5), timeline_text: "maybe only five years away".
• "Decades away" (ruling 11) is accepts with timeline_type: qualitative; leave timeline_year blank unless a number of decades is given. Seed example, marcus-2022-04: "we are still likely decades away from general-purpose, human-level AI" → endorsement: accepts (basis "still likely decades away"), present_capability: disputed, timeline_type: qualitative, timeline_text: "still likely decades away".
• Self-improvement words (ruling 12): see section 1.

Hard cases:

• Giving a date usually carries endorsement, but check the words. "AGI by 2029" with "will" or "I think" anchors accepts. "People say 2029; who knows" is uncertain (basis "who knows") or unexpressed.
• Worrying about something is not endorsing it. "If superintelligence arrives it could end us" is conditional at most, and unexpressed if no arrival claim is made. Writing about regulation does not establish that the author accepts feasibility.
• Rejecting a near date is not rejecting the capability. "Not by 2027" → rejects for that horizon only; record the year with the not_by tag (section 5) and say in notes whether the speaker accepts it eventually. If the same unit also says "but it will come eventually", code accepts with the hedge in timeline_text; set ambiguous: yes if the two are balanced.
• Rejecting a route is not rejecting the capability (A15 ruling 4). "Language models are not a road to AGI" says nothing about whether AGI will exist. Code unexpressed, and keep the route claim in claim_summary and notes. Seed example, lecun-2024-02: "They're not a road towards what people call 'AGI.'" → endorsement: unexpressed.
• Minimum years are acceptance (A15 ruling 5). "At least a decade" or "at least thirty or fifty years" asserts arrival with a minimum: accepts, timeline_type: range with timeline_year set to the minimum, timeline_year_high left blank, the lower_bound tag, and "at least" kept in timeline_text. Seed example, marcus-2016-01: "aren't going to be for at least thirty or fifty years" (2016) → accepts, range, timeline_year: 2046, high bound open.
• Probabilities. A stated probability of 50% or more by a date → accepts with timeline_prob filled (ruling 10). Below 50%, or a wide spread stated as such → uncertain.
• Jokes and sarcasm → unexpressed and ambiguous: yes, unless the speaker explains the joke.

One row per capability (A15 ruling 13)

When one statement makes distinct claims about distinct target capabilities, it gets one row per capability. The rows share the quote, source and date; their ids carry a one-letter suffix (marcus-2026-04a, marcus-2026-04b); each row is coded for its own capability.

Seed example 1, marcus-2026-04: "it's great for example at (some) code optimizations, but not even (as the blog makes clear) actual RSI, which remains speculative." Two claims:

• marcus-2026-04a: AI helping build AI exists → target_capability: si_assist, present_capability: demonstrated, endorsement: accepts (basis "it's great for example at (some) code optimizations").
• marcus-2026-04b: recursive self-improvement does not exist yet → si_sustained, present_capability: disputed, endorsement: unexpressed (nothing said about the future).

Seed example 2, altman-2025-06: "We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started. Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence…"

• altman-2025-06a: "the takeoff has started" → the lowest self-improvement level the words support (si_assist), present_capability: claimed, ambiguous: yes.
• altman-2025-06b: superintelligence → frame_primary: timeline, endorsement: accepts, timeline_type: qualitative, timeline_text: "close".

4. present_capability: does it exist now, in the speaker's view?

code	meaning
demonstrated	the speaker says it already exists and points to it
claimed	the speaker says it exists, without pointing to evidence
disputed	the speaker says current systems do not have it
hypothetical	discussed as a future or possible capability
na	no capability in view (target none)

na exactly when target_capability is none.

5. Timeline fields

As in version 1, with three tags (in notes) for claims that aren't arrival dates:

field	rule
timeline_type	point_year, range, prob_by_year, qualitative, none
timeline_year	an absolute year; for "in 10 years" add it to the statement year and record computed: 2023 + 10 in notes
timeline_year_high	only for range
timeline_prob	0 to 1, only when the source gives a probability. "Soon" is never converted to a number
timeline_text	the speaker's own words for the timing, always filled when a hedge is present

• not_by: YYYY for "it won't happen by YYYY". Leave timeline_year blank and code timeline_type: qualitative. These are not arrival dates and charts must not plot them as such.
• lower_bound for "at least N years" or "no sooner than YYYY". Fill timeline_year with the bound and add the tag. With timeline_type: range, the high bound may be left blank (open-ended minimum, A15 ruling 5).
• Proximity (distant, medium, near, present) is worked out when charts are drawn, never stored.

6. Consequences, affect and agency

field	codes	rule
consequence_type	existential, economic, social, mixed, unspecified	the kind of consequence the unit expects. unspecified when none is named
consequence_valence	beneficial, harmful, mixed, unspecified	whether those consequences are good or bad in the speaker's words
affect	enthusiasm, fear, resignation, neutral, mixed, unexpressed	emotional posture, only from explicit cues ("exciting", "scary", "I'm worried", "nothing we can do"). A plain forecast is unexpressed, not neutral; use neutral only when the speaker signals detachment ("I'm just reporting the trend")
agency	can_influence, cannot_influence, unexpressed	does the speaker say the outcome can be shaped? "We must regulate" → can_influence; "it's coming whatever we do" → cannot_influence

These are separate on purpose. Someone who expects AGI in five years can be thrilled, frightened, resigned or organizing.

• Constructed: "AGI by 2030, and frankly it terrifies me, but good policy can still steer it." → accepts (basis "AGI by 2030"), affect: fear, agency: can_influence.
• Constructed: "It's coming whether we like it or not." → accepts (basis "It's coming"), affect: resignation, agency: cannot_influence.

7. elicitation: how did the statement come about?

code	meaning
unprompted	the speaker chose to say it: their own blog, post, book, essay, talk
interview	answering a question in an interview, podcast or hearing
survey	answering a survey item
quoted	the unit is a claim quoted inside someone else's article, without the full exchange available

Secondhand rows are usually quoted.

8. Other fields

• definition_note: what the speaker means by AGI in this unit, if they say.
• coding_confidence: high when the codes are clear and the source is primary; medium when one needed judgment; low when several did, or the source is secondhand.
• ambiguous: yes when the words support two codes equally. Kept as a code, never resolved by guessing. Say which field in notes.
• date must match date_precision: YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM or YYYY.
• quote: verbatim, 60 words or fewer, "..." only within one passage.
• Primary and secondhand. Primary = the speaker's own words in something they produced or took part in (their writing, a transcript, a recorded talk, an interview with direct quotes by the outlet that did it). Secondhand = someone else's report or paraphrase, or a quote not traced to where it was said. Secondhand rows carry the secondhand tag and coding_confidence: low.
• coder: john, claude-agent (version 1, retired), claude-agent-v2, or claude-agent-v2.1 (rows changed under the A14 rulings).

9. Notes tags

Notes start with any of these tags, separated by ; , then free text:

tag	meaning
secondhand	see section 8
incidental	found while searching for a different speaker
sampled	kept under the every-third rule for a busy year
computed: <working>	how an absolute year was worked out
basis: "<words>"	the words carrying the endorsement (required unless unexpressed)
not_by: YYYY	"won't happen by YYYY" (section 5)
lower_bound	the timeline year is a minimum (section 5)

10. Mapping to Fast and Horvitz 2017

Methodology-v2 section 5 asks for the categories of Fast and Horvitz's 2017 study of New York Times AI coverage to be reconciled with these codes before the media stream starts. That reconciliation belongs to the media stream and has not been done yet.

Rendered from docs/codebook.md at commit 1c1b2cb.