A major UN human rights body named AI as a site of gender-based harm. It called on governments to regulate. It was a meaningful step. The draft acknowledged AI as a site of gender-based harm. But it named the visible harms more clearly than the structural ones, and called for dialogue where it needed to require accountability. Laura Carter, PhD and I submitted formal comments on behalf of WAIE+. This is what we found, and what we asked them to fix.

A few months ago I ended a consulting gig on my terms. I had built a brand strategy from scratch, a business development framework, nearly 20 years of experience poured into work that was meant to last. Then I was told: "AI said to do marketing this way." That was the whole argument. And it pointed at something much bigger than one bad meeting.

OpenAI's enterprise pivot looks like a strategy decision. It's actually a pattern. One we've seen before in American corporate history, with GE, with IBM, and with consequences that took decades to surface. The difference this time is that AI is compressing that entire arc into years, and the governance infrastructure meant to catch the harms isn't moving anywhere near fast enough to keep up.

The men running AI companies have their justifications. The rest of us have the consequences. A conversation with Claude, annotated, on ego, power, and who gets left out of the frame.