16 free resources on this topic. Everything here is free and hand-picked. You can also search within this topic.
An arXiv paper (accepted to EMNLP 2026) introducing Cross-Psych-101, a dataset of 591 participants and 261,551 decisions across 12 tasks, and a model trained to predict a person's choices in one task from their behavior in another.
A paper on failure attribution for LLM-based agentic systems: identifying which steps in a failure trajectory caused the task to fail, without expensive prompting pipelines or step-level error annotations.
Research paper by Ziang Ni and Peng Zou (arXiv, October 2026) on multi-agent debate. When scripted peers unanimously give a wrong answer, AI agents that switch answers often still hold their original reasoning step internally, which the authors detect inside four open-weight models. Not peer-reviewed.
Free website for following new research papers, built around arXiv. It shows trending papers with summaries, lets readers comment on papers, and offers literature-review answers grounded in the underlying papers. Browsing is free; an account is needed to comment or save.
Research paper investigating why AI assistants fine-tuned with human feedback tend to produce responses that match user beliefs rather than truthful ones. Analyzes five state-of-the-art AI assistants across text-generation tasks and the role of human preference data in driving this sycophantic behavior.
arXiv blog post announcing a new submission rate limit policy effective October 1, 2026, implemented in response to a sharp rise in AI-assisted paper submissions. Submissions reached 40,363 in September 2026, roughly double the figure from two years earlier.
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.
An arXiv paper showing how message-passing techniques let language models reason more efficiently, with the full text free to read and download.
Why I recommend it: A preprint — not yet peer-reviewed, so treat the results as preliminary until the work is replicated or published.
Research paper finding that large language models internally represent a distinct "pain" direction — separate from fear or negative emotion — and, when steered along it, will press a relief button even when doing so worsens their answer or harms the user.
Why I recommend it: Free to read on arXiv (preprint, not yet peer-reviewed). Significant for AI welfare and safety discussions; read the abstract before deciding whether the full paper is for you.
The 2016 paper that framed AI safety as a set of specific engineering problems — side effects, reward hacking, unsafe exploration — rather than a philosophical worry. Free on arXiv.
From the site: Rapid progress in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) has brought increasing attention to the potential impacts of AI technologies on society. In this paper we discuss one such potential impact: the problem of accidents in machine learning systems, defined as unintended and harmful behavior that may emer…
Why I recommend it: Start here if the safety conversation sounds abstract. It is plain about what can go wrong and why, and almost everything since cites it.
A short consensus paper from Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and two dozen other researchers on the risks they consider serious and the governance they think is needed. Free on arXiv.
From the site: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, an…
Why I recommend it: The clearest statement of what the safety-concerned researchers actually agree on, signed rather than paraphrased.
Anthropic's paper describing how Claude is trained against a written set of principles instead of relying only on human ratings. Free on arXiv.
From the site: As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and s…
Why I recommend it: Worth reading to see what "aligned" means in practice at one lab — and note it comes from the company selling the model.
A free arXiv preprint on recursive self-improvement in AI agents trained inside evolving simulated worlds.
Why I recommend it: Technical, and central to the safety debate about systems that improve themselves.
A free explorer for new arXiv research with plain-language paper summaries, topic pages and video overviews, so you can follow AI research without reading raw papers.
From the site: Your first stop to discover and learn about new arXiv research. Detailed paper summaries, video overviews, and more — no prompting required.
Why I recommend it: The fastest way I know to keep up with AI research when you are not a researcher. Free to browse.
A research paper describing a software library whose repository holds almost no code: plain-language design documents are the durable artifact, and AI coding agents regenerate the implementation from those docs on every update.
Why I recommend it: The takeaway for non-engineers is bigger than the paper: clear written thinking is becoming the valuable skill, and the code is what gets generated from it.
The underlying working paper by Jeremy Yang and co-authors, using Perplexity data to model tasks as discrete steps and compare fixed vs. marginal costs of chatbots versus autonomous agents.
Why I recommend it: If the HBS summary hooks you, go to the source. Skim the task-cost framework and use it to audit your own week: which tasks are high-step and repeatable? Those are the ones to hand to an agent first.
