Digital Strategy, Content, and AI Since 2009
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.
AI literacy is splitting three ways: China’s 2030 universal mandate, Maryland’s 120-day school policy clock, and NSF OpenSecCoder training to distrust AI-written code. Federal H.R.8747 still only unlocks funds.
Within 48 hours, OpenAI shipped always-on Dots agents and NVIDIA launched Open Agent Safety Platform with OpenShell and Sentry. Operators need named approval gates and runtime boundaries before proactive agents get credentials.
Bennet/Welch Federal Digital Commission and Warner/Schatz AI Safety Board landed within 48 hours. Operators must map pre-clearance/pause vs Commerce standards and Model Safety Plans.
LASST sued OpenAI over AI agent access to Hugging Face as California bars the autonomy defense. September also brought British Columbia failure-to-warn claims and a Florida AG injunction motion, while CGL carriers carve generative AI out of standard coverage.
Federal SI branding meets statutory AI. The September 29 Executive Order remaps executive-branch vocabulary to Super Intelligence without rewriting statute, and the collision with technical superintelligence is the governance risk operators must manage.
Human oversight of automated systems is older than AI, and current AI practice still falls short of it.
This paper traces human oversight and accountability from the cybernetics literature of 1948 to Article 14 of the EU AI Act, then separates Responsible AI from AI Governance. It sets out Checkpoint-Based Governance, where a named human holds binding authority to accept, modify, or reject an AI output and leaves a record, and it proposes the studies that would test it. It closes on the Growth OS, a future of work in which AI amplifies people instead of replacing them.
The machine is never the one who answers for what it does.
A September 2025 essay argued that AGI talk is usually about money and not reality. This September, Andrew Ng, Timnit Gebru, and Emily Bender reached the same point about responsibility from opposite sides of the AI debate. The piece separates real capability from the claims stacked on it, argues that superintelligence is further off than sold and will not end us, and moves from a human chain of responsibility to a real checkpoint.
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.
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.
