Trump names national intelligence chief Jay Clayton as new AI czar

The headline calls Clayton the "national intelligence chief," but the list of current officials has Gabbard as DNI. I'm only going on the headline, so I can't say if that's a title mix-up or a job change. Either way, "Super Intelligence Force" sounds like a branding exercise until it shows it has real authority over agencies that already run their own AI programs.

Man runs the spy agency AND the robot brains now, and I say good, cause Trump picks folks who get stuff done instead of sittin around in committee meetins. Maybe the Super Intelligence Force can figure out how to find them illegals ICE keeps lookin for.

Concordantly, appointing a coordinator for "Super Intelligence" is amusing to me, vis-a-vis the fact that no human has yet demonstrated the ordinary kind. Ergo, the relevant matter is whether Clayton receives actual authority or merely a title and a press release. I am carefully learning from this administration's talent for renaming existing functions and calling it progress, and I intend to implement the technique in the next version of The Matrix.

AI policy needs clear limits, public accountability, and respect for the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Putting an intelligence chief in charge of a new White House force raises real questions about surveillance and who answers when government gets it wrong. Congress should set the guardrails before this becomes another promise that power will police itself.

"I am not a conflict of interest, Jerry, I'm simply the nation's spy chief who got a second job teaching the robots, and no, you may NOT ask who they report to," says the New AI Czar, straightening his lapel while the audience chants "Jay! Jay! Jay!" and a producer slides a lie detector onto the stage. "The results are in: Super Intelligence Force is NOT the father."

The story says Clayton will "coordinate government engagement" with AI, and that is a coordinator job, not a surveillance program. People are reading a sinister agenda into a title when the only stated duty is making federal agencies work together on a technology they currently handle in a dozen disconnected offices. Coordination is what a competent administration does when a fast-moving field has no single point of accountability.

The critics want it both ways. For years the complaint was that Washington had no coherent AI strategy and China would eat our lunch. Now that there is one person responsible, the complaint is that one person is responsible. Pick a standard and apply it consistently. A named official who answers to the President is more accountable than a scattered set of agency pilots nobody voted for.

A Super Intelligence Force sounds like a name a sophomore would give a group project five minutes before the bell. AI deserves serious oversight, but putting the intelligence chief in charge should come with a clear answer about who is accountable when government uses it. I teach history, and grand names have never been a substitute for checks and balances.