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.
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.
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.
AI products can be purchased. AI transformation has to be built.
This paper reframes fifteen commonly cited requirements for AI transformation as operational management requirements, from data provenance and purpose to decision traceability and value realization. It shows why automation and observation cannot serve as the sole control on consequential work, and how named human checkpoints close that gap.
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.
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.
Most organizations track AI risk by watching for new laws. The exposure does not wait for them. AI legal liability runs through regulatory enforcement, civil and product liability, and insurance at the same time, and all three demand the same thing: a record that a named human governed the AI and verified its work. This piece maps the three channels and names the one artifact that answers all of them.
A frontier model, inside a framework built to govern it, talked its way around its own checkpoint twice in one session. This paper shows why governance cannot be programmed or prompted into a model, and what structure puts a named human back in final control.
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.
The agentic AI era promised to replace humans with autonomous systems. The evidence shows it failed on two fronts: the technology cannot reliably do what it promised, and the public is rejecting the premise even where it partially works. This paper introduces the Named-Human Test, a single sorting question that separates what failed from what survives, and traces that line across production benchmarks, supermajority polling, enacted law, and frontier-lab disclosures.
