Publication & Book Plan — Oct 2026 through Dec 2027

posted: 05-Oct-2026 & updated: 05-Oct-2026

This plan turns eleven published essays plus one monograph into seven paper candidates, each with a venue ladder of new outlets (beyond Nature MI / AIES / FAccT / Minds and Machines / Philosophy & Technology / AI & Society), verified deadlines, a collaboration outreach sequence, and a book track that starts Mar 2027.

The strategy throughout: easier prestigious routes first, rolling journals over deadline roulette, and every paper feeding the book.

The portfolio — seven papers from the corpus

#	Working title	Source post(s)	Core move	Lane
P1	Is AI Safe or Dangerous? — A Wrong Question to Ask	ai/future/ (May 2026)	Safety/danger is a category error; AI is a sociotechnical system; the real questions are governance and power concentration	AI ethics / governance
P2	Cognitive Catalysis: Beyond Replace vs. Assist	new-ai-human-collaboration-model (May 2026) + shadow-prices journey	Human–AI interaction as cognitive catalysis, with a lived case study (duality understanding via AI dialogue)	Cognitive science / HCI
P3	LLMs Do Not Believe, Reason, Know, or Think	ai/reason (Jun 2025)	Conditional-probability estimators; Wittgensteinian language-games argument; the Tom Cruise’s mother asymmetry needs a 2026 update (reversal curse literature)	Philosophy of AI
P4	Shadow Prices and Genuine Understanding	shadow-prices monograph (Feb 2026)	Duality as economics + history + epistemology; no novel theorems — this is exposition, and must be pitched as such	Expository math / phil. of math
P5	The End of the Survival Imperative	ai/future/ubi (May 2026)	UBI as existential infrastructure, not welfare policy; the crisis is meaning, not unemployment	Future studies / basic income
P6	The Multi-Agent AI Business Landscape	multi-agent-ai-biz-landscape (Jun 2025)	Multi-agent systems + privacy-preserving collaboration as business-model substrate	Management / practitioner
P7	Beyond Models: Data as the Differentiator	ai/data (Feb 2025)	Foundation models commoditize; advantage moves to domain data + RAG	Strategy / practitioner

Retired as paper sources: energy-challenge (Oct 2024; dated, thesis absorbed by P7), bridging-technology-and-humanity (memoir; feeds P1’s Salzburg material), salzburg-report (group deliverable; authorship complications — mine it for P1, don’t submit it).

Venue ladders — new outlets, verified deadlines

Deadlines below were checked against official CFP/journal pages on 05-Oct-2026. “Rolling” = no fixed deadline. Items marked (est.) are pattern-based estimates — do not plan travel around them.

P1 — governance. Primary: Ethics and Information Technology (Springer, rolling) — near-perfect scope fit, Q1. Alternate: Big Data & Society (SAGE, rolling; “Essays and Provocations” ≤3,000 words for the punchy version). Impact play: Issues in Science and Technology (NAS/ASU, rolling, pitch-first — read by policymakers). Conference option: IEEE ETHICS-2027, Duke, 25–27 Jun 2027 — papers due 11 Jan 2027 (verified).

P2 — cognitive catalysis. Conference: ACM IUI 2027 (Helsinki, 8–11 Feb 2027) — full papers passed (Aug 2026), but workshop papers due 9 Nov 2026 and posters/demos 10 Nov 2026 are open; full paper targets IUI 2028. Journal: ACM TiiS (rolling). Watchlist: CogSci 2027 — CFP not yet published (est. Feb 2027).

P3 — philosophy of AI. Primary: Synthese (rolling, double-blind, top-tier analytic). Alternate: Erkenntnis (rolling; good for the Wittgensteinian strand). Essayistic option: Journal of Consciousness Studies (rolling; recent issues ran “Do Stochastic Parrots Pine for Residual Fjords?” — your exact neighborhood).

P4 — shadow prices. Primary: The Mathematical Intelligencer (rolling; welcomes long-form surveys, history, philosophy, controversy — your piece’s natural home, cut to article length). Alternate: Notices of the AMS (rolling; enormous readership; distill hard). Epistemology thread: Philosophia Mathematica (rolling; requires engaging the philosophy-of-math literature — currently absent, must be added).

P5 — UBI/existential. Primary: Basic Income Studies (rolling; the field’s journal, publishes normative philosophy in plain language). Alternate: Futures (rolling; flagship futures-studies journal). Prestige reach: Technological Forecasting and Social Change (rolling; very competitive). Magazine: Noema (rolling, pitch full draft). ⚠️ Urgent: Futures & Foresight Science special-issue proposals due 31 Oct 2026 — proposing an SI on AI/work futures is a power move if you can draft a proposal in four weeks.

P6 — multi-agent business. MIT Sloan Management Review (rolling, 3,000–5,000 words) or California Management Review (rolling; note new submission fees since Sep 2026: $75–$150).

P7 — data strategy. Harvard Business Review (rolling pitch; your Samsung/Amazon/Gauss/Erudio record is ideal author authority) or Business Horizons (rolling; practitioner-academic balance).

Reference dates for the original six venues: FAccT abstract 27 Oct 2026 → paper 3 Nov 2026 (this is FAccT 2027, June 2027 — FAccT 2026 already happened; verified). AIES 2027: no CFP yet (est. May 2027). Do not pursue: EAAMO 2026 (all deadlines passed), IUI 2027 full papers (passed).

NeurIPS 2027 — the position-paper door

NeurIPS 2026 is closed — main track, position track, and all relevant workshops shut between May and September 2026. But 2027 offers two doors built for exactly this kind of work.

Position Paper Track (introduced 2025, second year running in 2026; expect a third year). Deadlines run with the main track (est. May 2027). This is the single best NeurIPS target in the portfolio: P1 (“Is AI Safe or Dangerous?”), P2 (cognitive catalysis), and P3 (the reason piece) all read naturally as position papers, and NeurIPS position papers get serious readership. If the track returns, one of P1/P2/P3 goes here.

Creative AI Track — a future home for the hallucination piece, once written (see the three unwritten posts below).

Workshops (papers (est. Aug/Sep 2027); mostly non-archival, so no journal conflicts):

• EconML (recurring series) → P4’s duality-economics material.
• Human-AI Coevolution (2nd edition 2026, likely a 3rd; explicitly accepts position papers) → P2.
• Optimization for Machine Learning / OPT (long-running) → P4’s technical side.
• AI and the Self (new in 2026; if it recurs) → P2/P5 and the Existential Trilogy themes.
• AI for Meta-Science (runs its own position-paper track; recruits philosophy and policy reviewers) → P2’s “AI catalyzing scientific understanding.”

Honest boundary: the main track is not your lane — it demands novel technical results, which this portfolio doesn’t claim. That’s a category matter, not a quality judgment. The position track and workshops are where essay-driven contributions live at NeurIPS.

⚠️ Scheduling tension: the position-track deadline (est. May 2027) lands just as the book phase begins (see Month-by-month roadmap). Decide by April 2027 whether a P1/P2/P3 submission is worth the detour — or whether the book gets those months undivided.

The FAccT 2027 fast-track — honest verdict

Twenty-two days to the abstract, twenty-nine to the full paper. The abstract is a cheap forcing function — submitting one without a paper costs nothing. The paper is the real question. My verdict: submit the abstract on Oct 27, and decide by Nov 1 whether the draft is genuinely strong; if not, walk away silently and take the journal ladder. FAccT is double-blind, so a withdrawn attempt burns no reputation, but a rushed weak submission wastes the one advantage you have — a thesis that is actually original. Do not attempt the sprint without a coauthor signed up this week (see the collaboration campaign plan) and writing time blocked daily. If the sprint doesn’t happen, nothing is lost: Ethics and Information Technology and Big Data & Society are rolling, prestigious, and arguably the better “easier first” route you asked for.

What each paper needs before submission

Be blunt: blog essays are not papers. Every candidate needs the same four upgrades:

1. Literature engagement. P1 must cite the fairness/STS/governance literature it currently gestures at; P3 must engage Shanahan (“Talking about Large Language Models,” 2022; clarifications, 2024) and the reversal-curse literature; P4’s epistemology thread must engage philosophy of mathematical practice (Mancosu, Avigad); P5 must cite the basic-income canon (Van Parijs) to show where “existential infrastructure” extends it.
2. A stated contribution. One sentence per paper: what does the reader know after reading that they didn’t know before? (P1: the three-mechanism account of why the safety framing persists. P2: the catalysis concept + case study. Etc.)
3. Steelmaned counterarguments. P1 must answer the “but alignment failures are real technical problems” objection head-on; P3 must answer the emergent-capabilities objection it already raises — and answer it harder.
4. A coauthor where the credential matters. Philosophy journals trust philosophers; governance venues trust governance scholars. Your engineering depth is the differentiator, not the credential — pair it.

Collaboration outreach — the campaign plan

You’re right: collaborators first, submissions second. A coauthor changes what the paper can claim, which venue it can aim at, and how reviewers read it. And because every journal target here is rolling, waiting a few weeks for the right coauthor costs nothing — the only deadline that forces parallel work is the FAccT abstract (Oct 27), which is a free option anyway. So the sequence is: prospectus → email → coauthor → submission, with FAccT as the single allowed overlap.

Your value proposition — the “why work with me” card

Write this once, then tailor one line per target. What you offer that almost no academic coauthor can:

• Mathematical depth. Stanford PhD under Stephen Boyd; convex optimization at the definition/theorem/proof level. You ground philosophical claims in real mathematics instead of gesturing at it.
• Twenty years of deployment. Samsung’s iOpt platform, Amazon personalization ($200M+ revenue impact), Gauss Labs, now Erudio Bio. You’ve shipped the systems academics theorize about.
• A live position at the frontier. Biotech AI operator in Silicon Valley, right now — deployment realities, incentive structures, and failure modes seen from inside the build rooms, plus access to real systems, data, and case studies.
• The differentiator in one line: rigorous theory + industrial deployment + cross-domain exposition. Nobody else on their email list has all three.

Tailor the emphasis: for philosophers (Bender, Shanahan, Mancosu, Clark), you’re technical ballast — the practitioner who builds what they theorize about. For economists (Nagurney, Mirowski, Danaher, Kang, Van Parijs), you’re mathematical rigor plus industry reality plus a non-Western vantage. For governance scholars (Narayanan, Ko, Vallor), you’re the operator’s view — the sociotechnical thesis argued by someone inside the sociotechnical system.

The outreach package — what you actually send

Never lead with the blog post. It’s background reading, linked once at the end of the email. What you send instead:

1. A one-page prospectus per paper (P1–P5; P6/P7 are solo). Seven elements, one page:

1. Working title (states the thesis, not the topic)
2. The thesis in two sentences
3. The contribution — what the reader knows afterward that they didn’t before
4. Target venue + deadline (shows you’ve done homework)
5. What you bring (from the card above, tailored)
6. What they bring (their specific work, cited — this is the flattery that isn’t flattery)
7. Proposed division of labor + timeline (concrete: “I’d draft §§1–3 by [date]; you’d own the [their expertise] sections”)

2. A thesis-led email, 150–200 words. Anatomy: subject line states the thesis (“The AI safety framing is a category error — proposal for a joint paper”); first sentence cites 1–2 of their specific works (proving you’ve read them); the thesis in two sentences; one sentence on what’s in it for them; one concrete low-cost ask (“Would you be open to a 20-minute call next week? Prospectus attached.”). Professors triage by the first three lines — never write longer.

The contact calendar — week by week

Week	Actions	Deadline driver
Oct 5–9	Decide the FAccT sprint. Draft the P1 + P5 prospectuses. Email Narayanan (P1) and Danaher (P5).	FAccT abstract Oct 27; SI proposal Oct 31
Oct 12–16	Draft P3 + P4 prospectuses. Email Bender, Nagurney, Kang.	—
Oct 19–23	Draft the SI proposal (if go). Follow up on week-1 emails.	SI proposal Oct 31
Oct 26–Nov 1	FAccT abstract (Oct 27) → paper go/no-go (Nov 1). SI proposal submitted (Oct 31).	FAccT; SI proposal
Nov 2–13	Second wave: Shanahan, Ko (after confirming prior contact), Mancosu, Mirowski. IUI 2027 workshop/poster (Nov 9/10) for P2. Draft P2 prospectus.	IUI workshops; FAccT paper Nov 3 (if sprinting)
Nov 16–30	Follow-ups. Write the hallucination post (unblocks P1, P3).	—
Dec	P1 submitted (journal). Long shots with draft in hand: Vallor, Clark, Van Parijs.	—
Jan 2027	IEEE ETHICS-2027 paper (Jan 11) — Ko as potential coauthor if the conversation is live.	IEEE ETHICS

Per-scholar battle plans

All twelve were verified as real people with current affiliations on 05-Oct-2026.

First wave — this week (deadlines force it).

• Arvind Narayanan (CS, Princeton) → P1. Why now: if the FAccT sprint is on, you need a coauthor this week, and he’s FAccT-adjacent (AI Snake Oil, 2024). Hook: the book’s demystification project — your category-error thesis is its philosophical sibling. What’s in it for him: a practitioner coauthor with deployment credibility; someone who builds the systems the book demystifies. Send: the P1 prospectus, framed for FAccT (sprint) or Ethics and IT (journal route) — decide before emailing. Ask: a 20-minute call this week or next. If silent: one follow-up Oct 19, then proceed solo on the journal route.
• John Danaher (Law, Univ. of Galway) → P5. Why now: the SI proposal (due Oct 31) — Danaher as co-proposer makes it dramatically stronger. Hook: Automation and Utopia (2019), especially the meaning-crisis chapters; your “existential infrastructure” framing extends them. What’s in it for him: the engineer’s ground truth on automation, a Silicon Valley vantage, and a Korean/East-Asian perspective his work lacks. Send: the SI proposal sketch + P5 prospectus — lead with the SI (time-sensitive), mention the paper as the follow-on. Note: two asks in one email is risky; frame them as one project with two outputs.

First wave, week of Oct 12.

• Emily M. Bender (Linguistics, UW) → P3. Hook: “Climbing towards NLU” (2020) and the stochastic-parrots lineage — then offer the Wittgensteinian language-games angle as something new, not a request for blessing. What’s in it for her: a technically deep interlocutor who builds LLM-adjacent systems; the reversal-curse literature update. Caution: she’s selective and allergic to hype-adjacent outreach — the email must prove genuine engagement in the first three lines. Send: the P3 prospectus (Synthese target, Feb 2027).
• Anna Nagurney (Management, UMass Amherst) → P4. Hook: variational inequalities and network economics — she lives at the optimization–economics–equilibrium interface. The pitch: a genuinely coauthored technical companion, not a foreword — the duality-economics material as a joint exposition. What’s in it for her: reach into new audiences via the history/epistemology dimension she doesn’t write. Send: a distilled 3–5 page note from the monograph — never the 6,000-line file. Soft target: EconML workshop, Aug/Sep 2027.
• Kang Nam-hoon (emeritus, Hanshin Univ.) → P5. Hook: his basic-income policy work — write the email in Korean. What’s in it for him: international coauthorship and Silicon Valley case material for the Korean policy debate. Also useful for: the SI proposal’s Korean anchor.

Second wave — November.

• Murray Shanahan (DeepMind / Imperial) → P3. Timing: November, after you’ve started the P3 literature pass so you can cite his 2024 clarifications specifically. Framing (critical): Wittgensteinian philosophy of language, which he endorses — never metaphysical reductionism, which his clarifications resist. Getting this wrong backfires. What’s in it for him: a rigorous Wittgensteinian treatment from a practitioner.
• Haksoo Ko (Law, SNU; ex-chair of Korea’s PIPC) → P1. First step: confirm whether your paths already crossed (open question #3 below) — that determines cold vs. warm framing. Timing: November is too late for FAccT-sprint coauthorship but right for IEEE ETHICS-2027 (Jan 11) or the journal version. What’s in it for him: a bridge between Korean AI governance and the global debate; a Silicon Valley operator’s perspective.
• Paolo Mancosu (Philosophy, UC Berkeley) → P4. The move: don’t just email — he’s a day trip away. Propose coffee in Berkeley. Hook: the mathematical-practice turn; your monograph as a 6,000-line primary source on how mathematical understanding actually happens. What’s in it for him: practitioner data for the philosophy of mathematical practice.
• Philip Mirowski (Econ/HPS, Notre Dame) → P4. Hook: Machine Dreams (2002) — your “KKT as invisible hand” chapter continues his history. Lead with the economics-of-duality material, not the epistemology.

Long shots — December, with drafts in hand. The rule for long shots: never cold-email a prospectus to a famous person. Email them a submitted paper.

• Shannon Vallor (Edinburgh) → P1/P2. After P1 is submitted — attach the draft; the gardener/scalpel rhyme with The AI Mirror is the hook.
• Andy Clark (Sussex) → P2. Attach the P2 draft; the extended-mind framing is the hook.
• Philippe Van Parijs (emeritus, UCLouvain) → P5. Attach P5 or the SI news; the “existential infrastructure” reframing is the hook.

Rules of engagement

1. One paper, one active lead. Don’t pitch P1 to Narayanan and Ko in the same week without disclosure — parallel silent pitches inside overlapping communities get found out.
2. No email without the prospectus. The prospectus is the proof you’re serious; the email is just the envelope.
3. One follow-up, 10–14 days, then move on. Silence is an answer; the rolling journals don’t punish you for it.
4. Every email ends with a concrete low-cost ask — a 20-minute call, a read of the one-pager. Never “let me know what you think.”
5. Track it. A simple table — who, date sent, what was attached, response, next step. You’ll be running twelve threads; memory won’t cut it.

The three unwritten posts — where they go

• Hallucination is Not a Bug — write this one; P1 and P3 both cite it, and it doesn’t exist yet. It becomes §-level material in both papers and a chapter in the book. (One caution, per your own note: keep the human-imagination parallel carefully hedged — the mechanisms differ, and you flagged the category-error risk yourself.)
• Which Jobs Are Safe Against AI? — your instinct is right: the essay’s move is that enumerating existing job families is the flaw; the new job families are human–machine collaboration roles. This is a book chapter more than a paper; don’t spend a submission cycle on it.
• TCP/IP vs Transformer — adopt the reframed version (substrate upgrade: from moving bits to moving cognition; who controls the waist). Book chapter; not a paper.

Book track — reconciling two drafts, starting Mar 2027

You have two live book projects and one timeline collision. The three-book series doc (Designing Society in the Age of AI, with Jeff Lee / Bo Hyoung Lee and Hayden Song / Youngwook Song — both verified as legal professionals and K-PAI Nexus co-founders) targets a Book I manuscript of Feb 2027 and publication Fall 2027. You told me you want to start book work in Mar 2027. Both can’t be true; the series schedule has already slipped. My recommendation:

• Oct 2026 – Feb 2027: papers. They are the forcing function that produces the book’s raw material — every P1–P5 maps to chapters.
• Mar 2027 – Dec 2027: Book I manuscript (revised target: complete draft end of 2027, publication 2028). One book, not three — Books II and III stay as architecture until Book I lands a publisher.
• Which book? Beyond the Hype (with Jun-Young Park) has actual prose — prologue and Chapter 1 drafted — but I could not verify Jun-Young Park’s identity anywhere; treat that collaboration as unconfirmed before building plans on it. The series has real, verified coauthors and a sharper audience (policymakers). Bet on the series, with Jeff and Hayden; fold Beyond the Hype’s drafted chapters into Book I Part I (the series doc already reuses them nearly verbatim).
• Publisher route: proposal-first. By Mar 2027 you’ll have 2–3 submitted papers as sample chapters plus the series architecture doc — that’s a proposal package. Target: MIT Press / Oxford UP for the policy series; trade houses only if you revive Beyond the Hype as the commercial sibling.

Month-by-month roadmap

• Oct 2026: FAccT abstract decision (The FAccT 2027 fast-track — honest verdict); draft the Futures & Foresight Science SI proposal (due Oct 31) if P5 is the lead; first-wave emails (Danaher, Narayanan, Bender, Nagurney, Kang); begin P1 academicization (literature + contribution statement).
• Nov 2026: FAccT paper go/no-go (Nov 1); IUI 2027 workshop/poster submissions (Nov 9/10) for P2; second-wave emails; write the hallucination post (it unblocks P1 and P3).
• Dec 2026: P1 submitted to a rolling journal (Ethics and IT or Big Data & Society) regardless of FAccT outcome; P3 literature pass (Shanahan, reversal curse).
• Jan 2027: IEEE ETHICS-2027 paper due (Jan 11) — P1’s conference version if the journal route is slow; P2 full draft for TiiS.
• Feb 2027: P3 submitted (Synthese or Erkenntnis); P5 submitted (Basic Income Studies or Futures); CogSci 2027 if CFP fits P2.
• Mar 2027: Book phase begins. Paper pipeline drops to maintenance (revisions, reviews). Book I chapter drafting with Jeff and Hayden; proposal package to publishers.
• Apr – Dec 2027: Book I manuscript; fallback submissions for any rejected papers; AIES 2027 (est. May) only if a paper is genuinely ready — no deadline-driven writing.

Your five talents, mapped to lanes

Engineer → practitioner venues (HBR, MIT SMR) where deployment credibility is the credential. Mathematician → expository math venues (Intelligencer, Notices) where the monograph lives; not research journals — there are no novel theorems, and pretending otherwise wastes everyone’s time. Philosopher → Synthese, Erkenntnis, JCS, and the book. (Amateur) cognitive scientist → IUI, TiiS, CogSci via P2. Biotech operator → authority signal across the practitioner pieces, and Erudio Bio as the running case study. The plan above keeps each talent in the lane where it’s actually valued.

---

What I need from you to start: (1) the FAccT sprint decision; (2) whether the Futures SI proposal (due Oct 31) is worth four weeks; (3) any prior contact with Haksoo Ko before I draft that email; (4) confirmation that the series — not Beyond the Hype — is the book bet.