• 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 Regulation

Humans Are Optional When Defining AI Governance for ISO, According to the U.S. Technical Advisory Group

September 22, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

Side by side panels comparing the ISO DIS 21520 Clause 3.2 AI governance definition with the rejected human authority version

A standards body just wrote down that AI governance can exist without a human in control.

In September 2026 the U.S. TAG to ISO/TC 258 answered a public comment on the draft AI standard for project management. It accepted two editorial corrections and rejected the one that would have put binding human authority and attributable accountability inside the definition. This is the filing, the four reasons for the rejection, and why a definition without a governor fails the moral test the public is already applying.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, AI Policy Regulation, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI accountability, AI Governance, AI Governance Definition, AI Policy, AI Regulation, AI Standards, Checkpoint-Based Governance, human oversight, ISO 21520, ISO TC 258, public trust in AI, Responsible 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

The Standard of Care: How NIST and ISO Are Turning Voluntary AI Governance Into a Liability Defense

June 8, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 4 Comments

Two voluntary AI standards are quietly becoming the line a court draws between reasonable and negligent. The NIST framework and ISO 42001 now carry legal and commercial weight, and the records that defend a claim are the same ones that compound an advantage. Here is where the exposure lands, and how to build the record before you need 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, Thought Leadership, Workflow Tagged With: AI Governance, AI Insurance, AI Liability, AI Regulation, AI risk management, Checkpoint-Based Governance, ISO 42001, NIST AI Risk Management Framework, Standard of Care

Empire of Evidence: Testing Karen Hao’s Claims Against the Governance Infrastructure They Require

March 28, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

White paper examining Karen Hao Empire of AI claims against AI governance infrastructure including AI Provider Plurality and Economic Override Pattern

A Governance Practitioner’s Examination of the Diary of a CEO Interview and Empire of AI A journalist with engineering training spent eight years investigating the AI industry and concluded that the major companies operate as empires. A governance practitioner who builds open-source infrastructure for the same industry watched the two-hour interview where she made that […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, Code & Technical Builds, Conferences & Education, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI data centers, AI Governance, AI Policy, AI provider plurality, AI Regulation, AlphaFold, checkpoint based governance, data annotation, Diary of a CEO, Economic Override Pattern, Empire of AI, GOPEL, HAIA, HAIA-CAIPR, Karen Hao, multi-AI governance, openai, Responsible AI, Timnit Gebru, Waymo

The U.S. Government Will Need to Seize AI Platforms and Data Centers if We Do Not Act

March 1, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

When Extinction Odds Meet National Security Logic, the Question Is Not Whether Government Acts but How

The Warning, the Override, and the Infrastructure We Have Not Built When Extinction Odds Meet National Security Logic, the Question Is Not Whether Government Acts but How 1. The Warning That Changes State Logic A single probability estimate from a credible pioneer can change the posture of an entire state. Geoffrey Hinton, the 2024 Nobel […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, Business, Code & Technical Builds, Mobile & Technology, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI Governance, AI Infrastructure, AI Policy, AI provider plurality, AI Regulation, AI safety, Anthropic, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Economic Override Pattern, Federal Policy, Frontier AI, Geoffrey Hinton, GOPEL, Human-AI Collaboration, National Security, openai, Pentagon, Public Infrastructure, Supply Chain Risk, Surveillance

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