Resource Hub
3505 hand-picked resources for students, job seekers, career changers, founders, and AI learners — 100% free to browse with no account required.
Filtered by tag
Answers come only from resources in this hub, with the sources listed.
60 resources
A Nonhuman Minds project combining philosophy, empirical benchmarks and engagement with AI companies on how AI alignment work can account for the welfare of animals and, potentially, AI systems. It publishes candidate commitments for model specs and constitutions.
Communications of the ACM research article synthesizing a 44-person workshop on AI, accessibility, and employment for disabled workers. It covers employment gaps, AI errors and hallucinations in situations where accuracy is critical, AI-scored video interviews that can screen out workers with non-normative speech or movement, accessibility overlays that may not work as advertised, and accountability gaps when inaccessible tools come from third-party vendors. Free to read.
A 2020 AIES paper by Abeba Birhane and Jelle van Dijk arguing that the robot-rights debate distracts from the harms AI systems already do to people, especially marginalized groups.
A Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article by Avery Forman (June 8, 2026) on research by Livia Alfonsi. A study of about 5,500 people in Kenya before and during the COVID-19 pandemic found that financial stress made most participants more willing to cheat; the article covers steps companies can take to deter cheating and support employees. Free to read.
Neuroscientist Anil Seth argues against AI products designed to be indistinguishable from real people on video, warning of scams, exploited loneliness and a weakened ability to tell reality from fantasy.
Philosopher Henry Shevlin argues that even if experts agreed some AI systems were conscious, society might still deny them moral consideration — drawing on how people treat animals they know to be sentient.
Jeff Sebo (September 17, 2026) on whether AI systems could matter morally: consciousness, sentience and agency are three distinct ways something can count — and in AI, unlike in animals, they may not come as a package.
A publication of expert dialogue and debate on the impacts of artificial intelligence, with articles from specialists across a range of fields.
A crowd-submitted directory of examples where AI tools are reported to have helped people, such as ElevenLabs voices for people with speech loss, Brainomix stroke scans, and John Deere See and Spray herbicide reduction. Visitors can browse top and new entries and submit their own.
Arianna Huffington's TIME essay, published October 2, 2026, on keeping human-generated awe in view alongside AI's capabilities.
Dylan Matthews' 2014 Vox profile of a philosopher who argues that harming characters in video games raises genuine moral questions — an early popular look at the ethics of digital minds.
An NCDA Career Convergence article by Safaa Amer (Oct. 2026) on how AI tools are reshaping career coaching — expanding access and automating tasks — and the AI literacy and ethical practice coaches need to use them responsibly.
A paper by Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni and Giada Pistilli arguing that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed. Drawing on prior scientific literature and current product marketing, the authors delineate levels of AI agent autonomy and show that risks to people increase as users cede more control, with safety risks to human life among the most concerning.
Consortium evaluating AI systems through faith and ethics perspectives. The page blocked a full check, so this description is based on the site's name.
Personal site of Basil C. Puglisi, MPA, author of Governing AI and creator of the Factics method. Free essays and frameworks on AI governance, AI literacy and measurable digital strategy.
We0 article (July 2026) on philosopher Harvey Lederman's research on the Confucian thinker Wang Yangming and its connection to Anthropic's alignment work on Claude. Published on the blog of an AI website-builder company.
UNESCO's global standard on AI ethics, adopted by 193 countries in 2021, covering values, principles and policy action areas for ethical AI.
A 2024 open-access article in Big Data & Society by Kerry McInerney arguing that the "AI arms race" narrative between the United States and China is deeply racialized, building on "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric and older anti-Asian tropes such as techno-Orientalism and the Yellow Peril. The author coins "Yellow Techno-Peril" and offers recommendations for policymakers, journalists, and media organizations. Free to read (open access).
Why I recommend it: The arms-race framing shows up constantly in AI coverage. This paper names what that framing carries with it and gives concrete guidance for talking about competition without the racialized baggage.
A July 2026 open-access article in the Cambridge Forum on Technology and Global Affairs by Elisabeth Siegel (University of Oxford) examining how "hybrid epistemic experts" — figures straddling technical expertise, corporate leadership, and policy influence, with Eric Schmidt as the central case — constructed and amplified the "U.S.–China AI Race" narrative between 2015 and 2023. The article raises concerns about democratic governance and the concentration of AI knowledge production in private hands. Free to read (open access).
Why I recommend it: Explains how the AI race narrative was built by people who sit in boardrooms and policy rooms at the same time. Read it alongside the Yellow Techno-Peril paper for two complementary critiques of the same framing.
University of Delaware article on what science fiction portrayals of AI can teach about real-world AI development and its societal questions.
Rutgers AI Ethics Lab's glossary entry on the ELIZA effect: the human tendency to read genuine understanding into a system that is only matching surface patterns, named after Joseph Weizenbaum's 1964 chatbot. Explains why it matters legally and ethically — people disclose more, attach emotionally, and decide based on false assumptions — and argues designs must not be built to imply empathy or consciousness.
Why I recommend it: Free, short, and from a university lab rather than a vendor — a good citation when you need a defensible definition. It is a working glossary, so entries carry a last-updated date and name no individual author; for the original argument, the further-reading link to Weizenbaum's 1976 book is free on the Internet Archive.
A project by educators and researchers sharing free curriculum, research and monthly programming that helps teachers and students question what a technology does to a classroom and a community, not just how to use it. Built on two stated assumptions: technologies are not neutral, and neither are the societies they enter.
Why I recommend it: Curriculum, book club and events are free; they also sell merchandise and offer paid professional development. Openly critical in stance, which is the point, so pair it with a source that argues the other way if you are writing policy.
An 11 September 2026 announcement post on the Effective Altruism Forum, by Manifund's Austin, saying Caroline Ellison started a work trial on 13 July and moved to a full-time role on 10 August, working on their funding platform and on research into directing philanthropic money. Free to read; heavily debated in the comments.
Why I recommend it: Filed as a primary document, not an endorsement. Caroline Ellison was a central figure in the collapse of FTX and served a prison sentence for fraud; this is the hiring organization's own framing of taking her on. It is worth reading alongside the comment thread, which was strongly negative at the time I added it, if you want to see how a movement argues in public about who it lets back in.
Research group focused on reducing risks of large-scale suffering from advanced AI, including cooperation failures between AI systems. Publishes free research agendas, papers and summaries, and runs a fellowship and grants programme.
From the site: We do research on how to best reduce suffering.
Why I recommend it: A niche corner of AI safety focused on suffering rather than extinction — useful if you want the full range of arguments, not just the headline ones.
