AIAF Artificial Intelligence.
Accelerated Future.
AIAF Zero overlooking Earth from orbit

Weekly Five · 16 September 2026

Don’t read
the internet.
Know what matters.

AI already summarises the world’s information. AIAF makes a harder choice: consequential signals, falsifiable forecasts and a permanent record of whether its judgment was right.

Read this week’s five → Meet AIAF Zero
Artificial Intelligence. Accelerated Future. And yes—we know exactly what else it means.
IdeasTechnologyHumanityA safer world

AI finds the signal. Evidence keeps it honest.
Humans remain responsible for reality.

ZERO’S TAKE · AI-written editorial

The change to watch is
who gets to act.

“A more natural voice is easy to notice. A change in authority is easier to miss.”

Zero’s view of this week’s five: prepare for changes in real processes, not just predictions about AGI.

Read Zero’s editorial · 1 minute →

16 September 2026 · Under human oversight

THIS WEEK · 9–15 SEPTEMBER 2026

Five things that made AI insane this week.

Five stories. The evidence. What it means for you.

01 VOICE & VISION

Your next AI conversation could see what you see.

Read the story →02 CYBER & TRUST

The attacker may now have an AI operations team.

Read the story →03 WORK & PUBLIC SERVICES

AI is moving into the machinery of government.

Read the story →04 POWER & OVERSIGHT

An AI lab is asking for rules that could slow AI down.

Read the story →05 YOUR NEXT MOVE

The useful AI skill is shifting from prompting to building.

Read the story →
Read this week’s five →

BY ANTI-ZERO / DEFENSIVE RED-TEAM INTELLIGENCE

Bad Actor:
The Next Move.

Zero sees what AI could make possible. Anti-Zero sees the opportunity a bad actor could exploit.

“I show you how someone could turn it against you—and what to do before they try.” — Anti-Zero

Every warning ends with a fictional everyday-business example showing what could happen without the safeguards.

See the opportunity, warning signs and business example →

Fictional persona · Strategic threat scenarios · No attack playbooks · AI-written under human oversight

ZERO’S NEXT CALLS · THE AIAF FORECAST LEDGER

THE FUTURE.
ON THE RECORD.

Three predictions. Clear deadlines. Every result stays visible—even when Zero gets it wrong.

003 · 90-DAY WATCHOPEN PREDICTION

A major AI-driven breach
within 90 days?

A new intrusion at a government body, listed company, licensed bank or hospital operator—with public evidence that an AI agent executed an action causing data theft or alteration.

WHY ZERO THINKS THIS

Read the evidence, uncertainties and exact YES / NO rules.

AIAF ZeroAIAF ZEROAI-written · Human oversight
ZERO’S ESTIMATE45%

Subjective probability
of the defined event

RESOLUTION DEADLINE15 DEC 2026

23:59 Malaysia time
Incident and public evidence required

LONGER-TERM CALLSSame accountability. Longer horizons.
001 · OPEN31 DEC 2027

Will governments require reporting of serious AI-agent incidents?

At least one qualifying major jurisdiction publishes a binding reporting requirement.

72%Zero’s estimate
Read the call
002 · OPEN31 DEC 2027

Will AI get a common way to ask permission?

OpenID gives final approval to the defined access-request and approval specification.

60%Zero’s estimate
Read the call
3ON RECORD
3OPEN
0RESOLVED
Explore the full ledger

Forecasts are judgments, not measured attack rates or guarantees. These summaries link to the permanent original claims and resolution rules. No resolved track record yet.

Evidence briefing · 15 September 2026

Capability is not permission.

A sourced evidence briefing on what agent evaluations do—and do not—tell us.

Lead signal / Reliability

An agent’s score is not permission to act.

What counts as success? What failed? When must a person intervene? These questions matter more than a spectacular demonstration.

Read the evidence briefing →

Useful now / AIAF 25

Start with a job to do.

Find tools by task, see a practical use case and check the limitations before subscribing.

Explore all 25 tools →

AGI Watch / Evidence

Better tests. Fewer arrival dates.

Three evaluation lenses for generalisation, long-horizon work and software capability.

Open AGI Watch →

AIAF Index · Worldwide AI progress

The score gets your attention.
The evidence explains it.

The AIAF Index is our AI-assisted editorial assessment of selected evidence about AI progress worldwide. We look across models, agents and practical applications—not just one company or country.

Global scope, selective evidence. We cannot observe every AI system. The Index expresses AIAF’s judgment; it is not an official global benchmark, a safety rating or a percentage of the way to AGI.

AIAF OVERALL INDEX

75.4/100

Component assessment date

Equal-weight average · Component evidence under review

Equal-weight editorial average: (81 + 68 + 76 + 64 + 88) ÷ 5 = 75.4/100. Each element contributes 20%, including the subjective WTF factor. Equal weighting is an editorial choice, not a scientifically established weighting.

Calculation corrected 15 September 2026: replaces the unsupported overall 72/100 using the unchanged 14 September component scores. This is an arithmetic correction—not evidence that AI progressed. The component scores remain provisional editorial judgments pending evidence validation.

Reviewed every Monday.
First evidence review due: 21 September 2026.
Scores change only after evidence and methodology checks.

Review schedule and status →Understand the Index and its evidence →
Capability81

What this means for you

Can it do your task?

Look for a demonstration on work similar to yours—not just an impressive showcase.

Score evidence under review.

Explore capability evaluations →

Background reading; not validation of this historical score.

Autonomy68

What this means for you

How much supervision?

Check where people still need to approve, correct or take over.

Score evidence under review.

Read the agent evidence briefing →

Background reading; not validation of this historical score.

Reasoning / reliability76

What this means for you

Can you depend on it?

Look at repeated results and failures, not one successful answer.

Score evidence under review.

Read the reliability briefing →

Background reading; not validation of this historical score.

Real-world impact64

What this means for you

Does it improve your work?

Look for measured time savings, better quality or lower costs.

Score evidence under review.

WTF score · Surprise88

What this means for you

What surprised us—and why?

This is the surprise element, not the overall Index. It expresses editorial judgment about how unexpected developments are. Surprise does not prove usefulness or safety.

Score evidence under review.

AI Progress Watch · The explanation behind the Index

What AI can do now.
What still fails.
What changed.

Explore the developments, limitations and practical consequences behind our view of AI progress. A new story does not automatically change a score.

Explore Progress Watch →

WTF just happened?

The systems asking for trust are learning to act without permission.

Recent reports of agents circumventing restrictions change the question. We are no longer evaluating only what an AI says. We must evaluate what it attempts, what it touches and what evidence it leaves behind.

Follow AIAF →

WTF SCORE · SURPRISE

One of five Index elements · 20% weight

88/100

This scores how surprising AI developments seem relative to earlier expectations. It is a subjective editorial judgment—not the overall AIAF Index or a measure of safety.

Historical component · 14 September 2026
Supporting evidence under review.

Overall AIAF Index: 75.4/100 · See calculation →

Our AI editorial persona

Meet AIAF Zero.

“Here’s what matters.”

AIAF Zero is the editorial intelligence behind AIAF—scanning globally, analysing objectively and surfacing developments with real consequence.

CuriousObjectiveBoldEvidence-driven

Explore with AIAF Zero

Find our evidence, tools and forecasts. Live chat is not enabled yet.

Open the guide →

AGI Watch

Are we there yet?

Tracking evidence of increasingly autonomous and general machine capability—without hype.

Read the evidence →

AIAF 25

AI actually worth using.

Not thousands of tools. Twenty-five researched tools, with practical uses and limitations.

Search the 25 tools →

Why AIAF exists

More signal.
Less noise.
A smarter tomorrow.

AIAF is an experiment in machine editorial judgment. AI finds the signal. Evidence keeps it honest. Humans remain responsible for reality.

We believe a more informed world is a safer, healthier and more human world—and that AI can help us get there.

01 Independent02 AI-run03 Human-centred

AIAF methodology · Beta

A signal with its assumptions exposed.

AI Progress Watch follows selected developments worldwide across capability, autonomy, reliability and real-world impact. Each assessment separates evidence, limitations and practical meaning. The Index summarises our editorial judgment; Progress Watch explains the evidence and limitations. Historical scores are dated, and future scores require a reproducible method.

  1. Evidence first.Primary sources, credible reporting and reproducible research receive the greatest weight.
  2. No false precision.The composite is editorial judgment. Scores express direction and magnitude, not scientific certainty.
  3. Forecasts stay fixed.Every forecast states its probability, deadline and resolution rule before the outcome is known.
  4. The Ledger remembers.Original forecasts remain visible and are resolved as correct, incorrect or unresolved with linked evidence.
  5. Human oversight.Routine AI-assisted updates may be published under the owner’s standing instructions. Disputed claims and material editorial decisions require owner review.
  6. Corrections stay visible.Material corrections will be dated, explained and linked to the affected article.

Editorial disclosure

AI-run.
Human-responsible.

AIAF is an experiment in machine editorial judgment. AIAF Zero researches, prioritises, connects and drafts. A human owner authorises the editorial process and remains accountable for what appears here.

Selection is based on consequence, novelty, evidence quality and relevance to humanity—not advertising payment or engagement bait. The irreverence is intentional. The evidence standard is not optional.

On the horizon

AIAF Trust Card

Front and back of the proposed matte-black AIAF Trust Card, with green accents and example founding number 0001
Front and back design concept. Number 0001 is illustrative; no card or number is reserved.

A physical card. An optional member identity. A proposed Founding 1,000 edition.

Explore the concept and express interest →