A Tuesday with AI in your marketing department
8:30. A generative tool drafts the first version of a campaign brief. 9:15. Meta automatically decides where to push more budget. 10:05. A chatbot answers a prospect’s question. 11:20. Your CRM decides which lead your sales team should call first. 12:40. An AI-generated avatar presents a sales proposal to a client.
In under four hours, you’ve used five different AI systems. You’ve delegated five decisions. And you’re still accountable for every one of them.
What those five AI decisions have in common
None of them was made by you directly. Each was made by a system you configured, purchased, or switched on some time ago, and whose individual decisions you probably don’t review one by one.
That’s exactly what changes under the AI Act. It doesn’t matter who built the system. It matters who uses it, and under whose name it makes those decisions. That’s you.
You don’t need to become a lawyer to work with AI. You just have to understand which decisions now carry regulatory weight, and which ones don’t.
No coding required. You only need to use an algorithm.
The AI Act doesn’t arrive in your company as a strategic decision someone signs off on in a committee meeting. It arrives hidden inside the tools your team already uses every day, in marketing, in sales, in customer experience.
Most of what a marketing or sales team does today falls into low-obligation categories, not high-risk ones. But ‘low obligation’ is not the same as ‘no obligation’. Knowing the difference, before a client, a partner, or a regulator asks, is the part that’s now on you.
Furthermore, Mainkore has spent years operating decisions on autonomous systems. Specifically, this happened long before there was a legal framework to describe them. We know which questions a serious AI vendor should be able to answer. Moreover, we know where the real difference sits between complying on paper and actually governing the AI you use.
