U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to replace “artificial intelligence,” or AI, with “Super Intelligence,” or SI, in official communications, websites and policy documents. The White House said the new name better reflects the technology’s advancing capabilities and “limitless opportunities.” The directive changes the terminology agencies use.
The State’s Role
Trump said he wants to remove “artificial” because, in his view, it makes one of the world’s most consequential technologies sound “fake.” The order directs agencies to adopt the replacement term in official materials. The White House’s explanation and the president’s order form the stated basis for the change.
This concerns the name government offices use. It doesn't describe a change to the technology itself, and it doesn't report a new rule for companies, workers or users. The account gives no details about how agencies will make the change beyond replacing AI with SI in official communications, websites and documents.
Two Names, Different Emphases
The article contrasts U.S. terminology with China’s long-standing name for the technology. It says China’s term puts humans, rather than artificiality, at the center of the relationship between people and intelligent machines. The account doesn't give the Chinese term itself, but describes the difference as a matter of how people’s relationship with the technology is framed.
The term AI dates back to 1956. Written by Chong Ming Lee, the article draws on that history and the contrast between U.S. and Chinese naming approaches. Trump objects to the implication of “artificial.” The White House says “Super Intelligence” better reflects rapidly advancing capabilities and “limitless opportunities.”
What the Account Establishes
The order directs federal agencies to change the name across their official communications, websites and policy documents. The White House describes the replacement in terms of capability and opportunity, while Trump focuses on the impression created by “artificial.” Those are the reasons reported for the directive.
The account identifies no company, investor or government contract tied to the order. It reports no effects on employment, wages, ownership or the distribution of revenue from the technology. It includes no worker statements, union response, organized campaign, protest or strike. Nor does it describe proposed labor or social reform. The material establishes a federal naming directive and competing descriptions of the technology, but doesn't report who may gain or lose economically from the change.
China’s contrasting terminology is presented as putting humans at the center of their relationship with intelligent machines. In the U.S. case, the executive order governs the words agencies use in official materials. The article reports those different emphases; it doesn't describe a broader policy change beyond the naming directive.