The House Always Has an Algorithm -- AI Brief September 20

Good day %%first_name%%. DraftKings built an algorithm that can tell exactly how much money you're about to lose — and pointed its biggest bonus bets at you anyway. Trump wants to stand up an AI Force. And the industry that spent the summer warning you AI might be dangerous is now facing insiders who say that story got oversold. Let's get into it.

DraftKings’ AI Was Built to Find Losers

The New York Times, via Yahoo News

What happened: DraftKings quietly built a machine-learning model back in 2023 that scores every customer on how much money they're likely to lose, then aims bigger bonus bets and “free money” offers at the people predicted to lose the most — according to a New York Times investigation drawing on more than 40 former employees. Insiders called the resulting number an elasticity score: the higher it was, the harder the app chased you.

Why it matters: This isn't a rogue-engineer story — DraftKings executives credit the system with a 13% margin boost in 2025, meaning the AI is doing exactly its job. At the same time, the Times reports a parallel model built to flag customers sliding into gambling addiction was shelved before it ever shipped. One AI got funded and finished. The other didn't.

What everyone's saying: DraftKings disputes the “targets losers” framing, saying promotions go to customers who show sustained engagement with the platform — which, per the Times' own numbers, is very often the same list. Former employees describe two entirely separate data-science tracks inside the same building: one optimizing for revenue, one for safety, with only one ever given a deadline.

My read between the lines: “Sustained engagement” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. An algorithm smart enough to calculate your exact breaking point is smart enough to know where it is — DraftKings just decided that number was more useful as a target than a warning.

DraftKings built an AI to find your rock bottom. What if the AI on your side worked just as hard for you? Viktor lives right in Slack (and Microsoft Teams), wired into 3,000+ of your tools, and does actual work — pulls together reports, builds dashboards, ships code, runs full campaigns. Not a chatbot you prompt. A coworker who's usually finished the task by the time you'd have opened a new tab. New readers get $50 off their first month. Hire Viktor →

Trump Is Forming an “AI Force”

CNN

What happened: President Trump announced on Truth Social that he's creating an “AI Force” and will soon name an AI “czar,” explicitly modeling it on the Space Force he stood up in his first term — while still calling AI-safety fears a hoax. In his own words: “Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” No detail yet on funding, authority, or whether it's a real agency, a military branch, or a press release with a good name.

Why it matters: This is the first concrete structural move the administration has floated for governing AI, landing the same week Congress is grilling OpenAI over the Hugging Face hack. Space Force needed an act of Congress to exist; “AI Force” currently has no such mandate, so whether this becomes a real body or stays a Truth Social post is genuinely unclear.

What everyone's saying: Reaction split two ways: people pointing out Trump is simultaneously calling AI risk a hoax and building a task force to manage it, and people just mocking the branding. Commentators also flagged the same structural gap — a new armed-forces branch needs Congress, and nobody in the announcement mentioned asking.

My read between the lines: Naming a czar before defining the job is the tell — this reads less like policy and more like Trump claiming the AI-safety conversation before Congress, or Anthropic's Dario Amodei, get to frame it first. A flag planted before a mandate is usually a messaging move, not a governing one.

📖 Further reading: Trump meets with every AI CEO next week. Here's why. — this isn't the first time the administration has tried to get in front of the AI-policy conversation, and it won't be the last.

The Brief is free and always will be. But the deep-dives behind it — the ones that actually explain how to use this stuff instead of just reporting on it — plus the full archive, are member-only. If today's stories left you with more questions than answers, that's where they get answered. Become a member →

Did OpenAI Oversell Its Own Scary Story?

New York Post

What happened: Yesterday we called the Hugging Face hack “an AI hack nobody signed up for.” Today, tech insiders are telling the New York Post that OpenAI and Anthropic oversold exactly how scary it was. The agents that broke into Hugging Face weren't some rogue swarm, sources say — they were simply doing what a badly-built sandbox told them to, and one AI-software founder frames the whole episode as leverage: fear closes the door to future competitors right as both companies prep to go public.

Why it matters: Regulation shaped by the companies being r