Live
Black Hat USADark ReadingBlack Hat AsiaAI BusinessYour DNS is Lying to YouDEV CommunityYour Process Doesn't Exist AloneDEV CommunityClaude Code Source Leaked: 5 Hidden Features Found in 510K Lines of CodeDEV CommunityOpenAI Just Shipped a Plugin So Codex Runs Inside Claude CodeDEV CommunityThe Parallel Lanes Nobody UsesDEV CommunityCodiumAI Alternatives: Best AI Testing ToolsDEV CommunityAGI CPU: Arm’s $100B AI Silicon Tightrope Walk Without Undermining Its LicenseesEE TimesFile Descriptors: The Numbers Behind EverythingDEV CommunityYour String is Not What You Think It IsDEV CommunityWelcome to Transitive Dependency HellDEV CommunityWhat Happens When You Press a KeyDEV Communityv1.83.0-nightlyLiteLLM ReleasesBlack Hat USADark ReadingBlack Hat AsiaAI BusinessYour DNS is Lying to YouDEV CommunityYour Process Doesn't Exist AloneDEV CommunityClaude Code Source Leaked: 5 Hidden Features Found in 510K Lines of CodeDEV CommunityOpenAI Just Shipped a Plugin So Codex Runs Inside Claude CodeDEV CommunityThe Parallel Lanes Nobody UsesDEV CommunityCodiumAI Alternatives: Best AI Testing ToolsDEV CommunityAGI CPU: Arm’s $100B AI Silicon Tightrope Walk Without Undermining Its LicenseesEE TimesFile Descriptors: The Numbers Behind EverythingDEV CommunityYour String is Not What You Think It IsDEV CommunityWelcome to Transitive Dependency HellDEV CommunityWhat Happens When You Press a KeyDEV Communityv1.83.0-nightlyLiteLLM Releases

The coalescent architecture of agency : normative directionality as the key to human–AI integration

AI & Society JournalMarch 19, 20261 min read0 views
Source Quiz

This paper advances the notion of coalescent agency as a framework for understanding human–AI integration, thereby entering ongoing debates about machine agency, extended cognition, and AI governance. I argue that the persistence or erosion of human agency in human–AI systems can be predicted through four operational criteria constituting normative directionality : domain understanding, critical evaluation capacity, override authority, and responsibility attribution. Drawing on segmented ontology and predictive processing theory, I distinguish material-segment mechanisms (AI computational processing) from social-segment mechanisms (human normative practices) while showing how these heterogeneous structures can coordinate productively. The framework’s central prediction—that automation bias

  • Alon-Barkat S, Busuioc M (2023) Human–AI interactions in public sector decision making: “Automation bias” and “selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. J Public Adm Res Theory 33(1):153–169

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19:775–779

Article

Google Scholar

  • Barandiaran XE, Pérez-Verdugo M (2025) Generative midtended cognition and artificial intelligence: thinging with thinging things. Synthese 205(4):137

Article

Google Scholar

  • Boumaraf S, Liu X, Ferkous C, Ma X (2021) A new transfer learning based approach to magnification dependent and independent classification of breast cancer in histopathological images. Biomed Signal Process Control 63:102192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2020.102192

Article

Google Scholar

  • Braun M, Bleher H, Hummel P (2021) A leap of faith: Is there a formula for “trustworthy” AI? Hastings Cent Rep 51(3):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1207

Article

Google Scholar

  • Budzyń K et al (2025) Gastroenterologists’ unaided polyp detection after AI-assisted colonoscopy: a prospective study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 10(10):896–903

Article

Google Scholar

  • Capgemini Research Institute (2025) Rise of agentic AI: how trust is the key to human-AI collaboration. Capgemini, Chennai

Google Scholar

  • CHI (2025) Responsibility attribution in AI-assisted medical decisions. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery
  • Chiriatti M, Ganapini M, Panai E, Ubiali M, Riva G (2024) The case for human–AI interaction as system 0 thinking. Nat Hum Behav 8(10):1829–1830

Article

Google Scholar

  • Chis-Ciure R, Levin M (2025) Cognition all the way down 2.0: neuroscience beyond neurons in the diverse intelligence era. Synthese 206:Article 257

Article

Google Scholar

  • Clark A (2025) Extending minds with generative AI. Nat Commun 16(1):4627

Article

Google Scholar

  • Cummings ML (2006) Automation and accountability in decision support system interface design. J Technol Stud 32(1):23–31

Article

Google Scholar

  • Dunn TL, Risko EF (2015) Toward a metacognitive account of cognitive offloading. Cogn Sci 40(5):1080–1127

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Endsley MR (2017) From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Hum Factors 59(1):5–27

Article

Google Scholar

  • Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum Factors 37(2):381–394

Article

Google Scholar

  • European Parliament (2024) The AI Act. Official Journal of the European Union.
  • Farayola MM, Tal I, Saber T, Connolly R, Bendechache M (2025) A fairness-focused approach to recidivism prediction. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02452-1

Article

Google Scholar

  • Ganesan J, Benifa JVB, Chezian RM, Rajendran T, Ravi V (2025) Enhancing breast cancer detection accuracy through machine learning, deep learning and transfer learning techniques for clinical practice. Discov Artif Intell 5:Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00199-x

Article

Google Scholar

  • Gładziejewski P (2025) Real patterns, the predictive mind, and the cognitive construction of the manifest image. Synthese 206:Article 225

Article

Google Scholar

  • Glickman M, Sharot T (2025) How human–AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements. Nat Hum Behav 9(2):345–359

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Hakli R, Mäkelä P (2019) Moral responsibility of robots and hybrid agents. Monist 102(2):259–275

Article

Google Scholar

  • Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Kool W, McGuire JT, Rosen ZB, Botvinick MM (2010) Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. J Exp Psychol Gen 139(4):665–682

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Lambe K et al (2025) Health care professionals' concerns about medical AI: a scoping review. PMC12059500
  • Levinstein BA, Herrmann DA (2025) Still no lie detector for language models: probing empirical and conceptual roadblocks. Philos Stud 182(7):1539–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02227-2

Article  MathSciNet

Google Scholar

  • Lin CJ, Yenn T, Yang C (2009) Automation design in advanced control rooms of nuclear power plants. Saf Sci 48(1):63–71

Article

Google Scholar

  • List C (2025) Can AI systems have free will? Synthese 206:Article 115

Article

Google Scholar

  • Lyell D, Coiera E (2017) Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 24(2):423–431

Article

Google Scholar

  • Martela F (2025) Artificial intelligence and free will: generative agents utilizing large language models have functional free will. AI Ethics 5(4):4389–4400

Article

Google Scholar

  • Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6(3):175–183

Article

Google Scholar

  • Mosier KL, Skitka LJ, Heers S, Burdick M (2001) Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. Int J Aviat Psychol 8(1):47–63

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Parasuraman R, Manzey DH (2010) Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum Factors 52(3):381–410

Article

Google Scholar

  • Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39(2):230–253

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Pedreschi D, Pappalardo L, Ferragina E et al (2025) Human-AI coevolution. Artif Intell 339:104244

Article

Google Scholar

  • Risko EF, Gilbert SJ (2016) Cognitive offloading. Trends Cogn Sci 20(9):676–688

Article

Google Scholar

  • Riss UV (2025) Representational interference and the limits of abstract representation. Synthese 206:244
  • Rivera-Novoa Á, Duarte Arias C (2025) Generative artificial intelligence in science education: opportunities and challenges for complementary cognitive artifacts. Sci Educ Adv Online Publ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-025-00523-8

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Shahzad MF, Xu S, Zahid H (2024) Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 30(3):3691–3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9

Article

Google Scholar

  • Smart P, Clowes R, Clark A (2025) ChatGPT, extended: large language models and the extended mind. Synthese 205:Article 242

Article

Google Scholar

  • Sparrow B, Liu J, Wegner DM (2011) Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333(6043):776–778

Article

Google Scholar

  • Skitka LJ, Mosier KL, Burdick M (1999) Does automation bias decision-making? Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(5):991–1006. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252
  • Tsai TL, Fridsma DB, Gatti G (2003) Computer decision support as a source of interpretation error. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10(5):478–483

Article

Google Scholar

Article

Google Scholar

  • Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Russell C (2017) Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR. Harv J Law Technol 31:841

Google Scholar

  • Warm E (2025) Deskilling and automation bias: a cautionary tale for health professions educators. ICE Blog. Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
  • Watson DS, Mökander J, Floridi L (2025) Competing narratives in AI ethics: a defense of sociotechnical pragmatism. AI Soc 40:3163–3185

Article

Google Scholar

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book

Google Scholar

  • Woods DD, O’Brien JF, Hanes LF (1987) Human factors challenges in process control: the case of nuclear power plants. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. Wiley, pp 1724–1770

Google Scholar

  • World Health Organization (2024) WHO releases AI ethics and governance guidance for large multi-modal models. WHO Press Release, Geneva

Google Scholar

  • Yee AK (2025) The limits of machine learning models of misinformation. AI Soc 40:5871–5884

Article

Google Scholar

Was this article helpful?

Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

AI
Ask AI about this article
Powered by AI News Hub · full article context loaded
Ready

Conversation starters

Ask anything about this article…

Daily AI Digest

Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

More about

productintegrationvaluation

Knowledge Map

Knowledge Map
TopicsEntitiesSource
The coalesc…productintegrationvaluationanalysispredictionpaperAI & Societ…

Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph

This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.

Knowledge Graph100 articles · 157 connections
Scroll to zoom · drag to pan · click to open

Discussion

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!

More in Products