Donald Trump is pressing government agencies and technology companies to call artificial intelligence “super intelligence.” The new label is already appearing in agency branding and official language, while some prominent tech leaders have voiced support. But the phrase carries a meaning of its own, and a name change does little to address the public concerns surrounding AI.
A government push to change the name
Trump has argued that “the use of the word artificial makes intelligence fake” and said the technology should instead be called “super intelligence.” An executive order issued last week directs agencies to avoid using “AI” wherever possible, according to the source article.
That directive has produced visible changes. The US Center for AI Standards and Innovation, previously renamed from the AI Safety Institute, is now called the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence. Justice Department press releases have also adopted the wording, including a description of “Super Intelligence-Assisted Music Streaming Fraud.”
Trump has extended the language beyond technology. He said the White House considers people who use “Artificial Intelligence” instead of “Super Intelligence” “THE ENEMY!” He has also proposed calling the press “artificial media” and described concerns about war-related price increases as “just artificial.”
Technology leaders echo the phrase
Several high-profile figures in the technology industry have appeared willing to follow the president’s lead. Elon Musk has promised to rename SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI. Jeff Bezos said he likes the change because “artificial is not a very flattering thing.”
Jensen Huang has also adopted the phrase, and Sam Altman praised it while saying OpenAI would keep its name. The support comes as Trump pushes for faster AI development, dismisses safety risks as overstated and backs more data center construction.
For companies, a broad rebrand could seem useful while public opinion turns against AI. Yet applying “super intelligence” to all AI systems blurs distinctions between today’s tools and the more advanced systems the term has often described. That could also make it harder for companies to reserve the label for products they want to present as unusually capable.
The phrase already means something specific
“Superintelligence,” written as one word, predates Trump’s use of the phrase. The source article says Nick Bostrom popularized it through his 2014 book. In that established usage, it refers to highly advanced AI that could surpass human thought, rather than AI as a whole.
That distinction matters because the field already uses terms such as artificial general intelligence and “useful general intelligence” to describe possible developments beyond current technology. Making “super intelligence” the umbrella term for the entire category could confuse discussions about what exists now and what might come later.
The terminology also crosses into policy. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cosponsored the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act in early September, using the earlier sense of the term in a proposal aimed at powerful AI. The same phrase could therefore appear in debates with different meanings and purposes.
A rebrand cannot settle the AI debate
The president can direct executive agencies, but the source article notes that he cannot prevent Congress from using “artificial intelligence.” The phrase also appears in existing laws, including Trump’s signature Take It Down Act, which agencies may need to cite in court.
If lawmakers take up additional AI regulation, they will have to decide how to refer to the technology and whether to adopt the administration’s terminology. The choice may be difficult when the proposed label is unfamiliar to many people and associated with Trump’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory position.
More fundamentally, changing the words does not answer practical objections. The source article points to public concerns about data centers and the AI industry. Calling the technology “super” may not persuade people who are worried about its effects, and an imposed label could instead make the rebranding effort appear less convincing.