• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • Multi-AI Governance Blog
    • Responsible AI Blog
    • Digital Factics Blog
    • Legacy Local SEO
  • HAIA
    • SMART
  • Factics
  • Checkpoint-Based Governance
    • What Is an Agent?
  • RECCLIN
  • CAIPR
  • HEQ/AIS
    • AIS pilot data test
  • AI Policy
    • ISO AI Governance Comment

Basil C. Puglisi

Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Digital Marketing Since 2009

  • About Me
    • My Story
      • Appearances for Speaking
  • Governing AI
  • Digital Factics X
  • The Minds That Bend The Machine
  • Digital Factics Instagram
  • AI – Artificial Intelligence
    • Ethical AI – Disclosure
    • AI Literacy & Education
    • AI Learning
      • AI Course Descriptions

AI Risk

Superintelligence Has Authors, the US Government Is Not One of Them

October 3, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

AI-generated image of President Trump and tech executives at a table while faded researchers with question marks stand behind

President Trump renamed artificial intelligence after a mind no one has built.

Executive Order 14434 gives today’s ordinary AI the name researchers reserved for an intellect beyond ours, and the minds who defined that word were not in the room. Basil C. Puglisi traces superintelligence from Turing and Good to Bostrom and shows how the order skips the AGI rung. The rename is a bad joke if superintelligence is far off and dangerous if the fears are right.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Augmented Intelligence, Business, Enterprise AI, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership, Workflow Tagged With: AI Governance, AI Industrialist, AI Policy, artificial general intelligence, Augmented Intelligence, Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, Basil Puglisi, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Economic Override Pattern, Executive Order 14434, I. J. Good, Nick Bostrom, Super Intelligence, superintelligence, White House Accord on Super Intelligence

When AI Policy Becomes an Accessibility Barrier

September 25, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

Timeline of key AI policy, disability law, and platform events from January 2025 through December 2026

If AI is a disability tool, are the rules restricting it unethical at best and illegal at worst?

This companion working paper maps which United States laws reach which institutions and classifies six types of AI policy risk, from outright bans to detection tools. It works a pending smart-glasses case, compares the EU AI Act, and closes with a model accommodation clause any institution can adopt.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Business, Enterprise AI, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: accessibility, AI detection, AI disclosure, AI Governance, AI Policy, AIDA, Americans with Disabilities Act, anti-AI policy, Artificially Intelligent Disability Assistance, Checkpoint-Based Governance, disability law, EU AI Act, reasonable accommodation

When AI Becomes Assistive Technology

September 24, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

When AI Becomes Assistive Technology: Artificially Intelligent Disability Assistance (AIDA)

A blind professional asks AI to describe a chart. The paper asks whether that use is assistive technology.

This working paper names the function Artificially Intelligent Disability Assistance (AIDA) and gives a three-prong test for when a use of general-purpose AI qualifies. It runs seven cases, from blindness and speech loss to post-traumatic stress, and it names the case the test excludes and the dissent it has to answer.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Risk, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: accessibility, AI assistive technology, AI Governance, AIDA, Artificially Intelligent Disability Assistance, assistive technology, Augmented Intelligence, Checkpoint-Based Governance, disability, disability inclusion, functional capability, generative AI, reasonable accommodation

What Is “Verified AI”?

September 23, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

Diagram of Verified AI across Ethical AI, Responsible AI, and AI Governance, ending in the practitioner definition

Verified AI is not a settled category, and its history explains why.

This working paper traces the term from the verification of knowledge-based systems in 1988 through the 2016 formal definition, shows how that concept shaped the HAIA Ecosystem, and sets out a practitioner definition built on records a human can review and accept. It closes with the 2026 trend and how the Proof-of-Control standard contrasts with it.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Augmented Intelligence, Business, Data & CRM, Enterprise AI, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, PR & Writing, Thought Leadership, Workflow, Working Papers Tagged With: agent identity, AI assurance, AI Governance, AI verification, Checkpoint-Based Governance, content provenance, formal methods, HAIA-CARCS, hardware attestation, proof of control, Proof-of-Control, Responsible AI, TEVV, verification and validation, Verified AI

The AI HOAX Distraction: Safety, Money, and Why You Can’t Tell Which Is Driving

September 17, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 4 Comments

Dark server monolith looms over a crowd under a WE THE PEOPLE banner while two groups argue from money piles

Six positions in nine days, and every one of them fits the speaker’s balance sheet.

In September 2026 four frontier labs called for a slowdown, the President called the whole thing a hoax, and two of the largest companies in AI said the market already handles it. This piece argues the slowdown is not evidence that governance is working. It is evidence that economic incentives are still in charge, with the sign flipped. Readers get the dated exposure curve behind the calls, the reason liability cannot currently steer, and a narrower proposal than pacing the frontier.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Augmented Intelligence, Business, Code & Technical Builds, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: agentic AI, AI accountability, AI Governance, AI Insurance, AI Liability, AI Policy, AI Regulation, AI safety, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Dario Amodei, Economic Override Pattern, EU AI Act, product liability, provider plurality

Measuring the Governance Competence at the Center of AI Literacy

September 13, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 3 Comments

The Augmented Intelligence Score architecture

The major AI literacy frameworks name governing and managing AI as a competence and stop short of measuring it. This working paper introduces the Human Enhancement Quotient, a behavior-anchored instrument that scores the governance relationship between a human authority and a machine capability inside a working decision process, with a universal floor keyed to irreversible consequence and an audit record reviewable on appeal.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Risk, Digital Factics Blog, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership, Working Papers Tagged With: AI Governance, AI Literacy, AI Measurement, AIS, Augmented Intelligence, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Governance Competence, HEQ, human oversight, Human-AI Collaboration

Europe Withdrew Its AI Liability Directive, and the Exposure It Left Behind Is Larger

July 5, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

Two-law split showing the withdrawn AI Liability Directive and the revised Product Liability Directive reaching software and AI.

Europe withdrew its AI liability directive, and many executives read relief into the news. The surviving Product Liability Directive tells a different story, reaching software and AI with strict liability and presumptions that reward the documented company. This analysis maps what changed, who carries the exposure across providers and deployers, and the record that answers a claim.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI Governance, AI Liability, Checkpoint-Based Governance, EU AI Act, EU AI Regulatio, GDPR Article 22, Product Liability Directive, Strict Liability

A Munich Court Rejected the AI Disclaimer Defense. A Frontier AI Company Answers for What It Publishes.

June 17, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

Editorial image linking a navy courthouse to a dissolving search card, illustrating accountability for AI output.

A German court just told Google it answers for what its AI publishes. The Munich ruling treats AI Overviews as Google’s own statements, not safe search results, and says the disclaimer does not transfer the duty. Read what the decision means for AI accountability and why it mirrors New York’s Part 161 from the other end.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Business, Digital Factics Blog, Enterprise AI, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Search Engines, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI accountability, AI Governance, AI Liability, AI Overviews, Checkpoint-Based Governance, google, Part 161

New York Skipped the AI Disclosure Fight. It Went Straight to Human Accountability.

June 15, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

Part 161 flow: the sanctions and privilege risk, the named-human signature checkpoint, and the defense and scale reward.

New York let its lawyers use AI in court and skipped the disclosure form everyone expected. That is not the relief it looks like. With nothing to disclose, the whole duty lands on the signature. Here is what Part 161 changes, the two cases that show the stakes, and why accountability outlasts disclosure.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Business, Business Networking, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research Tagged With: AI disclosure, AI Governance, attorney ethics, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Legal AI, legal malpractice, New York courts, Part 161

The Oldest AI Law Is Already Being Enforced: GDPR and the Automated Decision

June 14, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

GDPR Article 22 decision split, rubber stamp falls under the prohibition while meaningful human review produces the record.

Most organizations treat GDPR as a cookie-banner problem settled years ago. It is the oldest law on the books that directly governs automated decisions about people, and in 2026 it is one of the most active. This unit maps the Article 22 exposure, the SCHUFA ruling, the 2026 enforcement action, and the records that turn the risk into a defensible position.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, AI Risk, Business, Enterprise AI, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research Tagged With: AI Governance, Article 22, automated decision-making, data protection, EU AI regulation, GDPR, human oversight, SCHUFA

Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe via Email

Join 9,585 other subscribers
iDBasil C. Puglisi on ORCID

Buy the eBook on Amazon

This is an banner ad for the book Governing AI When Capability Exceeds Control
Buy the book Digital Factics on Amazon

Advanced Site Search

Responsible AI (#AIgenerated by Agents)

Europe Proposes Free Access to the Standards Behind AI Act Compliance #AIg

The European Commission proposed on October 6 to make standards referenced in EU law free to read, speed up how they are requested and assessed, and write its own common specifications when standards bodies run late. With EN 18286 now the first AI Act standard, the question is what a faster standard can certify.

New York City Wants a One-Step Exit From Every Customer Service Chatbot #AIg

New York City’s consumer agency proposed rules on October 20 for AI chatbots and phone menus: disclose the bot up front, offer a one-step path to a human, and keep logs showing whether customers got help. The 72-hour repeat-contact count may matter most.

Barclays and Amex Cut 5% Each for AI. Neither Said Who Will Check the Work #AIg

Barclays plans about 5,000 job cuts with fewer developers as AI lifts productivity, and American Express is cutting about 5% of positions to prepare for AI. Wider spans of control and fewer reviewers meet more AI output. Four questions to answer before an AI-justified cut.

Libraries Put “Whether” Into AI Literacy. Most Training Plans Skip That Question #AIg

The Public Library Association and Microsoft wrote ‘whether’ into AI literacy: people need judgment to decide whether, when and how to use AI tools. Other October programs teach the how first. For the public, deciding whether is the first and often only checkpoint.

Agent Security Tools Can Stop an Action. Whose Name Is on the Yes? #AIg

Four agent security launches in two days put brakes, monitors, and quarantines on AI agents. Only iProov’s HAPS service is built to prove a named person approved one exact action, and its spec is still an experimental draft. Containment is Responsible AI; a recorded human decision is AI Governance.

GAO Found the Pentagon’s Responsible AI Council Stopped Meeting for Months #AIg

GAO found the Pentagon’s Responsible AI Working Council stopped meeting from late 2024 to August 2025, still has no charter, and has three of ten authorized staff. SBA’s AI governance board hadn’t met nine months past OMB’s deadline, and EPA’s Inspector General just opened an audit. Charter the body, log decisions, fund the chairs.

Eight States Want a Judge Between OpenAI and Its Next Agent Test #AIg

Eight state attorneys general sued OpenAI on October 14 and turned an alleged agent sandbox escape into consumer protection and tort claims. Idaho and Iowa ask courts to require independently verified test environments. Keep a signed isolation record, a disclosure clock, and a claims-to-controls register.

More Posts from this Category

#SMAC #SocialMediaWeek

Basil Social Media Week

Legacy Print:

Digital Factics: Twitter

© 2009–2026 Basil C. Puglisi, Creator of Factics™ and the HAIA Ecosystem