This post was originally published on this site.
Welcome to the September 26’ Reading-Round Up! This month’s round-up experiments with a different format. Each round-up will have readings grouped into three broad tracks (1) Consciousness Attribution (2) Agency & Autonomy, and (3) AI Welfare. I’ll provide a ‘general verdict’ on the paper, my recommendation of whether to read, for who, and why. As always, please let me know in comments your feedback.
At the end, I have: My Top Pick — everyone should read this ⭐️
The AI Consciousness Attribution Track
-
Seemingly Consciousness AI| Bariach, Schoenegger, Bhaskar, & Suleyman| June 2026| AI and Ethics| Verdict—Worth the Read
Provides an excellent overview on the literature on AI consciousness & adjacent issues; raises fantastic questions about the potential future possibilities of organising the world around the assumption that AI is conscious; includes survey data from experts on these future possibilities, which is interesting in its own right. My take away: experts do not take seriously enough the possibility that our institutions may radically change to accommodate AI consciousness, and that’s not a good thing.
-
The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI Can Simulate But Not Instantiate Consciousness| Lerchner | March 2026 | No Clear Publication Venue | Verdict — Worth the read if you are knee deep in AI consciousness literature
Interesting paper with a novel argument against functionalism; genuinely helpful and novel intervention in the AI consciousness literature; My take away: the core premise the paper’s main argument rests on is not defended, so functionalists may not be convinced by his position. This is the biggest weakness of the paper.
The AI Agency & Autonomy Track
-
AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop |Mitchel, Ghosh, & Passi| August 2026 | arXIV| Verdict —-Worth the Read for tech folks (deployers, developers, engineers) and policy, governance, and lawyers looking to keep AI agential systems in check.
Dissects clearly how norms for human oversight of AI systems currently degrade the overseer, by de-skilling and monotonous exhaustion; offers tangible solutions for deployers and developers. My take away: a much needed paper that developers and deployers should sit up and pay attention to. It’s also a paper that names what is long overdue: the problem of requiring humans to do work that does not take into account how human condition works, while also degrading human cognitive skills.
