Trump Renamed AI "Super Intelligence." Now a 120-Day Clock Is Running.

Today's theme is simple: who gets to write the rules for AI, and who is quietly leaving the room. Washington just named a new task force, an OpenAI insider walked out, and New York City put four AI giants under oath.

Meanwhile, the tools themselves keep getting cheaper, more useful, and more advertised at you. Here is what matters for your business.

You don't have to read everything — just the right thing. 1440's daily newsletter distills the day's biggest stories from 100+ sources into one quick, 5-minute read. It's the fastest way to stay sharp, sound informed, and actually understand what's happening in the world. Join 4.5 million readers who start their day the smart way.

Join for free today!

What happened: Over the weekend, President Trump launched a task force called the Super Intelligence Force, chaired by Jay Clayton, who is now effectively the White House's AI czar. According to TechCrunch, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, Pentagon research chief Emil Michael, and OPM Director Scott Kupor are vice chairs. The group has 120 days to deliver a report on AI's risks and opportunities. Its charter says it will respond to threats "while preventing overregulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation and competition." It follows last month's order telling federal agencies to say "super intelligence" instead of "AI."

Why it matters to you: The name is a rebrand. The people are not. Notice that the FTC chair, the person who polices deceptive business practices, now also sits on a body whose stated priority is avoiding too many rules. Clayton has said the bigger risk is "not being first." Whatever this group writes in about four months becomes the first draft of how the tools you pay for get regulated, including anything touching customer data or advertising claims.

What to do about it: Nothing yet. Just keep a simple list of which AI tools touch your customers' information, so you're ready when the report lands around the start of February.

What happened: David Robinson, who spent about three and a half years at OpenAI and helped write the safety reports that accompany its major launches, resigned and published an essay in The Atlantic. TechCrunch reports he called the company's culture "broken" and argued that its trial-and-error approach "guarantees periodic failures." He said frontier labs should run more like nuclear plants or airports, with layers of redundancy. OpenAI's spokesperson responded that the company is "making sure our models don't become more capable than we can safely manage."

Why it matters to you: This is one person's account, and OpenAI disputes the framing. But it's the kind of warning that keeps repeating, and it comes from someone who read the paperwork. If your business leans on one AI vendor for something important, like customer replies or bookkeeping prep, that's a reason to keep a backup plan.

What to do about it: Pick one AI task you rely on and write down what you'd do if that tool were down or changed tomorrow.

Last year's Epic Marketing Summit sold out, and I'm still annoyed I wasn't in the room. I know a lot of the trainers, and these folks don't teach theory. They've done the work. The 2027 edition lands in Miami this January with a bigger AI focus, and it's built around one idea: you build it with us, you don't just hear about it.

Over 2 days you put together a working AI-powered sales funnel and vibe code your own AI app on-site, so you walk out with a finished asset instead of a notebook full of ideas you still have to implement. It's made for business owners who want to turn their sales process into a system instead of running it on their own time and energy.

I'm going in January, and if you're serious about building leverage into how you sell, I'd like to see you there too. The closer January gets, the less time you have to decide. Grab your spot here.

What happened: On Monday, the New York City Council held a hearing on AI safety, and Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Meta agreed to testify under oath. According to The Next Web, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google agreed only after the council threatened subpoenas, while Meta came voluntarily. Musk's SpaceXAI was subpoenaed. Speaker Julie Menin has also proposed bills that would require third-party validation before AI systems are deployed in the city, mandatory human kill switches with $25,000 penalties, lawsuits over foreseeable AI harm, and 24-hour incident reporting by city contractors.

Why it matters to you: Those are proposals, not laws. But when federal rules stall, cities and states fill the gap, and a patchwork is a real headache for any business operating in more than one place. The contractor reporting idea is worth noticing if you do work for any government agency.

What to do about it: If you sell to city or state governments, ask your AI vendors how they handle incident reporting.

What happened: OpenAI announced a new visual ad format that it will test during image generation in ChatGPT, in the US, later this month with select advertisers. In its announcement, OpenAI says the ads will be clearly labeled and kept separate from the image being created. It also expanded measurement partnerships with firms like Hightouch, Tealium, and LiveRamp, and cited results such as WeightWatchers paying 15.3% less per customer acquired than on paid search. OpenAI says "advertising does not influence the answers ChatGPT provides."

Why it matters to you: Two sides here. As a customer, expect to see more ads where you're used to seeing none. As a business owner, a new ad channel is forming with real tracking behind it. The performance numbers are OpenAI's own, from hand-picked advertisers, so treat them as a sales pitch until independent data shows up.

What to do about it: Don't rush in. Watch what early advertisers report over the next few months before spending a dollar.

What happened: The AI evaluation company Mercor tested 12 licensed CPAs against AI models on four realistic month-end accounting tasks. In its published results, Claude Opus 5 scored 100% across all 20 attempts, finishing each in under 10 minutes. The CPAs averaged 37% and took 30 to 180 minutes per task. Mercor put the cost at about $0.21 per task for the AI versus $10.35 for the accountants.

Why it matters to you: The catch is in Mercor's own write-up. The test measured detail work like finding data, doing the math, and following instructions, which is exactly what models are best at. It did not measure client conversations, judgment calls, or the messy context of real books. So this is a strong sign that routine bookkeeping prep is getting cheap, not a sign your accountant is obsolete.

What to do about it: Ask your bookkeeper or accountant whether they're using AI for the routine steps, and whether that shows up in your bill.

Some of my closest friends and a few real business partners came directly out of one room. I've been a member of the Ignite Mastermind for over 3 years, and it has been a vital part of how I've grown my business.

It's an annual membership built for entrepreneurs still under $1 million a year in revenue who want structure, tools, and peers to get there faster. You get 6 to 8 live virtual workshops a year plus 2 in-person multi-day live events, each of which would normally run anywhere from $97 to $997 on its own. There's also an all-in-one marketing software suite that replaces over $5,000 a month in separate tools, and weekly mentorship calls with Perry Belcher and his team.

As my personal bonus, members also get monthly accountability and business development calls with me. If you're looking for a mastermind to move you to your next milestone, this is where I'd point you. Take a look at Ignite here.

What happened: Google paused its Open Source Software Vulnerability Rewards Program as of October 1, saying the move came "due to a significant rise in automated submissions, the vast majority of which are not valid." TechCrunch reports that maintainers were buried in AI-generated reports, some describing problems that don't exist. Google expects to share an update in the first quarter of 2027.

Why it matters to you: This is a preview of a problem you may already feel. When AI makes it nearly free to produce something that looks real, whether a bug report, a review, or a sales email, the people on the receiving end drown in it. Real security researchers now have a harder time getting paid for real work.

What to do about it: Assume the volume of polished-looking junk in your inbox and review pages will keep rising, and decide who on your team checks the facts.

Look at the pattern. The people writing the rules are being chosen, the people writing the safety reports are leaving, and the companies are being asked to swear to things under oath. Meanwhile the products get cheaper, more capable, and more advertised. None of that is a reason to panic or to buy in blindly. It's a reason to keep your feet on the ground: know which tools you depend on, keep a backup, and wait for independent proof before believing any vendor's numbers. Stop the rollercoaster, and get off at your own stop.

If this helped, forward it to one person who runs a business and is tired of AI noise. And if someone forwarded this to you, subscribe so tomorrow's issue lands in your inbox.

Talk tomorrow,
Mark Shilensky

Follow me personally on Social Media:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarkShilenskyPage
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markashilensky/
Threads: https://www.threads.com/@markashilensky
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shilensky/
X: https://x.com/markshilensky
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mark.shilensky
BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/markshilensky.bsky.social