• 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
  • The Minds That Bend The Machine
  • Governing AI
  • Digital Factics X
  • Digital Factics Instagram
  • AI – Artificial Intelligence
    • Ethical AI – Disclosure
    • AI Literacy & Education
    • AI Learning
      • AI Course Descriptions

AI safety

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

AI Governance Beyond the Warning: From Tristan Harris’s Diagnosis to the Infrastructure It Requires

April 12, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 1 Comment

Graphite sketch of two men in conversation at a podcast studio table with a microphone between them

A Governance Practitioner’s Response to the Diary of a CEO Interview (PDF Here) Executive Summary Tristan Harris’s November 2025 conversation on The Diary of a CEO reached millions of viewers with a structural diagnosis of the AI race: the same incentive architecture that produced social media’s damage to democracy and mental health is now operating […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership, White Papers Tagged With: Agentic Misalignment, AI Governance, AI provider plurality, AI safety, Alignment Faking, Anthropic, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Congressional AI Policy, controlai, Diary of a CEO, Economic Override Pattern, Erik Brynjolfsson, Geoffrey Hinton, GOPEL, HAIA, Lina Khan, Open Source Governance, Steven Bartlett, Stuart Russell, Tristan Harris

Why AI Cannot Govern AI: Beyond Models to Multi-AI Platforms

April 4, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

Four-layer AI governance stack diagram showing preservation failure altitudes from same-family oversight through human checkpoint authority

1. What the Research Found On April 2, 2026, a research team at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz published a study called “Peer-Preservation in Frontier Models” (Potter, Crispino, Siu, Wang, & Song, 2026). The researchers wanted to answer a straightforward question: if you assign one AI model to evaluate another AI model, and the […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, Code & Technical Builds, Conferences & Education, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI provider plurality, AI safety, CAIPR, Checkpoint-Based Governance, frontier models, GOPEL, human oversight, multi-AI oversight, peer-preservation, Responsible AI

Open Letter to the UN Scientific Advisory Board on AI Deception

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

Open Letter to the United Nations Scientific Advisory Board on AI Deception by Basil C. Puglisi

From Basil C. Puglisi, MPAHuman-AI Collaboration Strategist | basilpuglisi.comMarch 23, 2026 To the Members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the United Nations: The Brief of the Scientific Advisory Board on AI Deception correctly identifies a problem that practitioners working across multiple AI platforms encounter daily. Sycophancy and related deceptive behaviors are no longer theoretical […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, AI Governance, Multi-AI Governance, Policy & Research, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI Deception, AI safety, Alignment Faking, Arms Race, Checkpoint-Based Governance, GOPEL, HAIA-CAIPR, multi-AI governance, Non-Cognitive Governance, Scientific Advisory Board, Sycophancy, United Nations

What 34 Reports Actually Told Us About AI: The Truth Behind the Hype, the Proof, and the Path Forward

March 4, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi 2 Comments

A synthesis of research from McKinsey, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, BCG, IBM, Microsoft, WEF, Deloitte, OECD, the Future of Life Institute, and more, compiled and critiqued by a practitioner. The Setup: Why This Matters More Than Another Hot Take Alex Issakova curated and shared a collection of 34 leading AI research reports from the world’s most […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership, White Papers Tagged With: agentic AI, AI deployment, AI failure rates, AI Governance, AI pilots, AI research synthesis, AI ROI, AI safety, Basil Puglisi, boardroom AI governance, Checkpoint-Based Governance, enterprise AI, EU AI Act, Factics, FLI AI Safety Index, GOPEL, HAIA-RECCLIN, Human-AI Collaboration, McKinsey AI, OECD AI, open-source AI

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

A Governance Specification for AI Value Formation

February 10, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

Why AI constitutional authority cannot rest with one person. A governance specification proposing a nine-member committee for AI value formation at Anthropic.

No individual, however capable, can provide the epistemic coverage required for legitimate governance of AI systems affecting billions. This governance specification by Basil C. Puglisi proposes a nine-member constitutional committee modeled on the Supreme Court. Majority rules, and dissent is preserved for the AI to learn from. Its composition criteria span sustained life responsibility, transcendent belief, multilingual cognition, experiential education, and cultural range.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, Business, Data & CRM, Digital & Internet Marketing, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership, White Papers, Workflow Tagged With: AI constitution, AI ethics, AI Governance, AI provider plurality, AI safety, AI value formation, Amanda Askell, Anthropic, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Claude AI, constitutional committee, epistemic coverage, Geoffrey Hinton, GOPEL, HAIA-RECCLIN, Mrinank Sharma, multi-AI validation, WEIRD bias

The Adolescence of Governance

January 28, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

AI governance, Responsible AI, Ethical AI, AI safety, Constitutional AI, human oversight, checkpoint based governance, AI accountability, Basil Puglisi, Dario Amodei, Anthropic, AI authority

The Quality Distinction Missing from AI Safety Original Letter (Click to Read) To: Dario Amodei, Chief Executive Officer, Anthropic, Your essay, The Adolescence of Technology, is one of the most serious and intellectually honest examinations of advanced AI risk produced by a frontier lab leader. It avoids religious doom narratives, rejects inevitability claims, and confronts […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, Business Networking, Mobile & Technology, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership Tagged With: AI accountability, AI Governance, AI safety, Anthropic, Basil Puglisi, checkpoint based governance, Constitutional AI, Dario Amodei, Ethical AI, human oversight, Responsible AI

A CONSTITUTION IS NOT GOVERNANCE

January 26, 2026 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

White paper analyzing Anthropic's Claude Constitution as Ethical AI rather than AI Governance. Introduces Checkpoint-Based Governance (CBG) framework for structural oversight of agentic AI systems.

Anthropic’s constitution for Claude is a serious Ethical AI document, but it is not AI Governance. This white paper by Basil C. Puglisi separates Ethical AI, Responsible AI, and AI Governance and shows where the constitution stops short of human oversight. It closes with a Minimum Viable Governance Annex template that organizations can adopt.

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, Business Networking, Content Marketing, Data & CRM, Digital & Internet Marketing, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership, White Papers Tagged With: agentic AI, AI governance vs ethics, AI safety, Anthropic, Checkpoint-Based Governance Secondary: HAIA-RECCLIN, Claude Constitution, Constitutional AI, Corrigibility, Enterprise AI Risk Long-tail: Claude Constitution analysis, Ethical AI, EU AI Act, human oversight, human-AI collaboration framework, Primary: AI Governance

Recursive Language Models Prove the Case for Governed AI Orchestration

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

Recursive Language Models, RLM, AI orchestration, AI governance, inference-time scaling, governed AI, HAIA-RECCLIN, Checkpoint-Based Governance, Human Enhancement Quotient, AI oversight, agentic AI, AI systems architecture, AI accountability, AI safety, human AI collaboration

MIT built the engine. The question now is who drives. This analysis is written for people designing, deploying, or governing reasoning systems, not just studying them. It is a long-form technical examination intended as a foundational reference for the governance of inference-scaling architectures. In one of the MIT paper’s documented execution traces (see Appendix B […]

Filed Under: AI Artificial Intelligence, Business Networking, Data & CRM, Multi-AI Governance, Thought Leadership Tagged With: agentic AI, AI accountability, AI Governance, AI orchestration, AI oversight, AI safety, AI systems architecture, Checkpoint-Based Governance, governed AI, HAIA-RECCLIN, human AI collaboration, Human Enhancement Quotient, inference-time scaling, Recursive Language Models, RLM

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)

India’s Telecom Regulator Would Require a Designated Officer’s Approval Before Any AI System Is Used #AIg

TRAI’s draft guidelines on responsible AI in telecom would require a designated officer to approve every AI system before use and make operators accountable for vendor-built AI. They say less about who rules on outputs once a system is running. Comments are due November 27.

Only a Quarter of UK Workers Always Verify AI Answers. Who Decides Which Ones Count? #AIg

O’Reilly found that only 24% of UK employees always verify AI-generated answers, and 39% of those using them have acted on one that proved wrong. Perceptyx and RGP point to the missing piece: deciding which AI outputs need a named person’s ruling.

New AI Certificates for Doctors and Teachers Teach Checking. Do They Certify It? #AIg

Google launched an AI certificate for healthcare professionals that takes under five hours and carries up to 5.0 CME credits, and Scale and UMSL launched a 12-hour microcredential for teachers. Both teach evaluation of AI output. A European teacher framework asks for evidence of it, and employers can too.

OpenAI Built Four Layers to Watch Its Agents. Human Paging Mostly Keeps Business Hours #AIg

OpenAI’s October 29 post describes up to four automated layers that watch its agents, then discloses that human paging runs at any hour only for highest-priority alerts on frontier training runs, during business hours for most other traffic, and is currently off for internal Codex. For enterprise deployments, alerts go to the customer’s own webhook, and on our reading so does the decision.

House Democrats Ask AI Labs for Incident Reports Within 48 Hours of Discovery #AIg

Letters dated October 27 ask five frontier AI companies for a full accounting of misalignment incidents by November 11 and notice within 48 hours of discovery. None of the fourteen requested items asks who inside a company decides a flagged event is an incident, and that decision is what starts the clock.

A New Jersey Bill Takes Reasonable Care Off the Table for Chatbot Injuries #AIg

New Jersey’s A5607, reported out of committee on October 19, would make a chatbot a product and hold its provider liable for any injury to a user from its use, even after all reasonable care. The monthly harm assessment it requires still needs a named person to decide what the numbers mean.

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.

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