The blog: essays on decision ownership
Long-form arguments about who answers for a decision once a machine is in it.
The essays live on Substack, where they are published first and where you can subscribe to get them as they go out.
Read and subscribe on Substack →
The shorter, daily version of the argument runs on LinkedIn — follow the posts there →
What the writing covers
Decision ownership. Plainly: whose name is on the call when it goes wrong, and whether they can defend it.
What changes on 1 January 2027. California’s ADMT rules, what they require operationally, and who has to sign. Whether a specific organization is covered, and what it must do, is a determination for its counsel — this is not legal advice.
Why accountability is the scarce thing. Answers became cheap. The capacity to own a consequential call and carry the consequence did not.
What a machine cannot do. An AI has no legal personhood, no liability and nothing at stake. When an automated decision goes wrong, the exposure lands on a human name.
Also worth reading
The manifesto is the short version of the argument the essays make at length. The session page says what is being measured, and what the work cannot claim.
Answers are becoming a commodity. Accountability isn't.
Bring a decision.
Two minutes, in your browser. Leave with the call stated plainly, the assumption that carries it, and the judgment AI cannot make for you. Nothing you type is stored or sent.