Trump's Super Intelligence Force is one post long. Tavus's 'video Turing test': 26 of 54 people who were never told to look.

The President's Super Intelligence Force against the one post that announced it; "the first AI to pass the video Turing test" against the method on Tavus's own page; and the reach audit, one prompt that tells you what every agent on your machines can read.

By Daily Aletheia · Checked against the primary source · 5 October 2026 · 5 min read

Image: Office of the Director of National Intelligence - the official portrait of Jay Clayton on the ODNI leadership page, odni.gov; the sides are the same photograph blurred to fill the 16:9 frame

On Sunday the President announced a Super Intelligence Force to coordinate the federal government's work on AI, in a post on his own network - and this morning that post is the entire public record of it. On Friday both AI digests we read led with a company's claim that its video avatar had passed the Turing test. This issue is about what sits behind each, and the one audit to run on every agent that can read your disk.

The Signal - Trump's Super Intelligence Force: four officials, a 120-day report, and a post as the whole record

What happened: On Sunday 4 October President Trump announced "the formation of the Super Intelligence Force (SIF)" in a post on Truth Social, "tasked with coordinating the effort of the Federal Government to ensure that America continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence". It is led by the Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, with FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson, the Pentagon's chief technology officer Emil Michael and OPM director Scott Kupor, and reports to the President and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

The details:

The remit: the force "will coordinate the Federal Government's engagement with Consumers, Public Interest Groups, Religious Organizations, Critical Infrastructure Providers, and Super Intelligence Companies". No budget, no powers and no date appear in it.
The 120 days: CNBC reports the force "will have 120 days to research and report on AI's risks and opportunities" - first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and not in the President's post.
The name follows the 29 September executive order on saying "super intelligence"; the post opens by citing the accord six chief executives signed last Tuesday.
The FTC's chairman sits on it while his agency's probe of OpenAI and Anthropic is still not in writing.

What it means for you: Nothing follows from a post today. What changed is who answers for AI in Washington - the intelligence chief, with the consumer regulator and the Pentagon's technologist beside him - and a clock: 120 days from Sunday is 1 February. Watch whitehouse.gov, where this morning there is no order, charter or fact sheet for the force.

The counterweight: Everything here is one social-media post and officials' words to reporters; with no published charter, the force's powers are whatever the next document gives it.

The Truth Check - "Griffin is the first AI to pass the video Turing test"

Free to keep reading. Every issue, checked, three mornings a week.

Free. Unsubscribe any time.

The Move - The reach audit

The Move - The reach audit is for members. $9 a month, founding price.

See Membership Sign In

The Check

What was said: "Griffin is the first AI to pass the video Turing test."
What the Source Says: Tavus's own page, 1 October: 54 people recruited through a research platform were told they would be matched with another participant for a one-minute video call; they were not told their partner might be a machine; only at the end of a survey were they asked whether it had crossed their mind. 26 of the 54 said it had not (48%). The previous system scored 2.4% of 41. Tavus calls it "to the best of our knowledge, the first model to have ever passed the video Turing test" and is giving Griffin-Lite to select trusted testers only.
The Difference: The 48% holds as the company's own figure. The label is overstated: in Turing's game the judge knows a machine may be present and tries to tell; here nobody was asked to judge until afterwards, the call lasted a minute, and the only examiner is the vendor, with no outside replication. Verdict: the number holds, the label is overstated.

Sources & further reading

Was this issue useful?