AGI Topics APIOrganize the research. Keep claims in scope.

Record the definition being used

When a source discusses artificial general intelligence, preserve the definition or framing that gives the claim meaning. A document may focus on breadth of tasks, transfer to unfamiliar problems, or a particular evaluation proposal. These are related discussions, but they are not automatically interchangeable.

Use topic labels to improve discovery across this literature. Keep the source’s wording and the catalog’s normalized concept separate. That allows a reader to find related material while still seeing how different authors frame the underlying question.

Distinguish a proposal from a result

A benchmark proposal describes a way to evaluate a system. A reported result describes performance under particular conditions. A capability claim interprets what that result might mean. Give these different record types so the interface does not flatten them into one assertion.

Retain task scope, test conditions, and the source of each claim. When information is unavailable, leave it unresolved. A polished catalog entry should not imply that a missing evaluation has been performed.

Use related concepts without promoting them

Topics such as reasoning, planning, adaptation, evaluation, and AI safety can help readers navigate research. Applying one of those labels to an article says what the article discusses; it does not establish that a model reliably demonstrates the property in every setting.

Create scope notes for ambiguous concepts and maintain examples that show how the labels are assigned. If two reviewers disagree, examine the definition before assuming the disagreement can be fixed by a different classifier.

Make attribution easy to inspect

A reader should be able to tell who made a claim, what evidence was presented, and whether the entry is describing a proposal, an observation, or an interpretation. Preserve those distinctions in summaries as well as detailed records.

Connect AGI discussions to model and evaluation guides when they share methods or terminology. Keep the navigation useful while resisting a universal score or label that compresses different research questions into an unsupported conclusion.

An illustrative record

This example highlights fields worth discussing when you design your own contract. Define their meanings, allowed values, and review rules before an application relies on them.

{
  "topic_id": "ai.general-intelligence",
  "statement_type": "research-discussion",
  "evaluation_scope": "source-defined tasks",
  "claim_attribution": "example-research-note",
  "review_status": "context_required"
}

Illustrative schema and example values; adapt them to your data and review process.

Questions about AGI Topics API