Rename AI by decree, and you quickly learn how far a decree reaches. Ten days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order telling the federal government to say “Super Intelligence” instead of “artificial intelligence“, the old phrase is still everywhere: in agency rulemakings, in the statutes the order itself relies on, in California’s state government and, most awkwardly, in the text of the order.
That is the argument of an analysis by Adi Robertson in The Verge, published on 9 October 2026 under the headline above. Its standfirst puts the case simply: a “super” new euphemism “probably isn’t enough to make Americans forget their concerns about AI”.
We wanted to test that claim with evidence rather than opinion. This article sets out what the order requires, who has adopted the new name, what the official record shows ten days in, where the law blocks any attempt to rename AI, and what the confusion means for businesses that buy, sell or regulate the technology.
Table of contents
- How Trump Set Out to Rename AI
- What the Order to Rename AI Actually Requires
- Who Has Adopted the Push to Rename AI
- The Federal Register Test: Is the Order to Rename AI Working?
- Why the Law Will Not Rename AI on Command
- The Superintelligence Collision: Rename AI and Lose a Word
- What the Public Thinks of the Bid to Rename AI
- Why Trump’s Plan to Rename AI Differs From His Other Renames
- What the Order to Rename AI Means for Businesses
- What Happens Next in the Bid to Rename AI
- Questions About the Order to Rename AI
- References
How Trump Set Out to Rename AI
The campaign moved from a social media poll to an executive order in ten days. Our earlier reports covered the United Nations speech where Trump first announced the change and whether the new name can fix AI’s image problem. Here is the full sequence.
| Date (2026) | What happened |
|---|---|
| 19-21 September | Two Truth Social polls: first Superior, Extreme or Supreme Intelligence, then Super against Superior |
| 22 September | UN General Assembly speech announces “super intelligence” |
| 29 September | White House summit, Accord on Super Intelligence, Executive Order 14434 signed |
| 30 September | California’s governor orders state agencies to keep saying “artificial intelligence” |
| 2 October | Order published in the Federal Register (91 FR 63129) |
| 4 October | Elon Musk says SpaceXAI will become SpaceXSI; Super Intelligence Force announced |
| 6 October | Federal prosecutors describe a fraud case as “super intelligence” crime |
| 8 October | Trump calls anyone who says “Artificial Intelligence” “THE ENEMY!” |
| 28 November | Deadline for proposed legislation defining “Super Intelligence” |
The polls behind the bid to rename AI
The new name came from Trump’s own followers. Forbes reported that his first Truth Social poll offered “Superior Intelligence (SI) or, Extreme Intelligence (EI) or, Supreme Intelligence (SI)”, calling all three “far more elegant and accurate” than the current term. Superior Intelligence won, in a poll Forbes put at around 66,000 votes.
A second poll then pitted “SUPER INTELLIGENCE VS. SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE”. According to The New Republic, “Super intelligence” won “by 30 percent”. The next day, Trump took the result to the United Nations.
“Let’s see if I have any power”
At the General Assembly on 22 September, Trump said that “the use of the word artificial makes intelligence fake. It makes it sound fake, and it is not fake.” He added a line that now reads as the test of the whole project: “Let’s see if I have any power. Maybe I do, and maybe I don’t. We’re gonna find out pretty soon.”
What the Order to Rename AI Actually Requires
Executive Order 14434, “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence”, was signed on 29 September after a White House lunch with technology chief executives. It is short, at 686 words in its operative text, and its wording matters more than the rhetoric around it.
The instruction to rename AI
Section 1 sets the policy: “to the maximum extent permitted by law, the executive branch shall use the terms ‘Super Intelligence’ and ‘SI’ in place of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ and will not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting.”
In practice, the order asks officials to rename AI in their own prose and publications. Section 2 applies it to “official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the executive branch”. Every part of the order to rename AI is hedged with “to the maximum extent permitted by law”.
What the order leaves alone
Section 2(b) says nothing “requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents”. Section 3 defines Super Intelligence as the technologies covered by “artificial intelligence” in section 9401(3) of title 15 of the US Code. That definition is broad enough to cover machine learning systems from recommendation engines to chatbots. The new name therefore means exactly what the old one meant, by reference to the old one, so to rename AI here is to relabel, not to redefine.
Section 3(b) gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 60 days, which runs to 28 November, to propose legislation for a federal definition of “Super Intelligence”, including “conforming amendments” to existing statutory references to “artificial intelligence”. The executive branch, in other words, accepts that only Congress can rename AI in law.
The order’s own word count
We counted the phrases in the order’s operative text, from “By the authority” to the signature. “Artificial intelligence” appears nine times and “Super Intelligence” seven. Some of the old uses are unavoidable, because you cannot replace a term without naming it. But a document that declares the old phrase unacknowledgeable still uses it more often than the new one.
Who Has Adopted the Push to Rename AI
Some adoption has been fast and visible, which is the half of the story the White House prefers.
Inside government: the first to rename AI
The US Center for AI Standards and Innovation, itself a 2025 rebrand of the AI Safety Institute, is now the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence. Its NIST web address has moved from /caisi to /caissi, and its mission page now refers to “SI systems” throughout, including evaluations focused on “cybersecurity, biosecurity, and chemical weapons”.
Federal prosecutors followed too. When Michael Smith was sentenced to 18 months on 6 October for a streaming fraud built on AI-generated songs, US Attorney Jamie McDonald said Smith “exploited super intelligence technology to generate a fraud”. Music Business Worldwide noted that the same office’s announcement of Smith’s guilty plea in March “referred to ‘artificial intelligence’ throughout”.
In the technology industry
Elon Musk went furthest. On 4 October he posted “No more AI. SI. It’s better”, and when asked whether SpaceXAI would become SpaceXSI he replied: “Yes, we will make that change.” Forbes noted that morning that the company’s website and social accounts still said SpaceXAI, with no timeline given.
Nvidia’s Jensen Huang now calls data centres “super intelligence factories”, and his X post about the White House Accord on Super Intelligence has been viewed more than 2.1 million times. Jeff Bezos told Fox News: “I do like SI because artificial is not a very flattering thing… Nobody wants an artificial sweetener or artificial flavoring.” Sam Altman praised the term, though The Verge reports OpenAI will not change its name.
Who is holding back
Axios reported, in coverage summarised by Newsmax and Cryptopolitan, that the leading labs have not renamed their models. Several told Axios they expect “SI” to live mostly in their dealings with the president. One executive compared the effort to the Gulf of America, which some oil companies adopted and others ignored.
The Federal Register Test: Is the Order to Rename AI Working?
Press releases and posts are easy to change. The Federal Register, where agencies publish rules, notices and requests for comment, is a harder test, because its documents are drafted by staff across government. We searched it through its public API for both phrases.
What the official record shows
From 29 September to 9 October, exactly two Federal Register documents used “super intelligence”. Both were presidential: the order itself, and a same-day order launching America.gov, which requires that “super intelligence used in connection with America.gov is accurate, reliable, and transparent”. Not one agency document used the new term. Twelve documents used “artificial intelligence”, and eleven of those came from agencies.
Bar widths are each count divided by 12. Counts come from federalregister.gov API searches for each exact phrase, run on 9 October 2026. We then opened each document on govinfo.gov to check the passage that used the phrase and to classify the publisher. For comparison, the same search found 24 documents that used “artificial intelligence” from 1 to 28 September, and none used “super intelligence”.
Where the old phrase survived
| Published | Publisher | How “artificial intelligence” appears |
|---|---|---|
| 29 Sep | Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor) | Names an existing survey, AARP’s Artificial Intelligence Survey |
| 29 Sep | Federal Reserve Board | Warns of attacks “by artificial intelligence tools” on stablecoin issuers |
| 30 Sep | NHTSA (Transportation) | Reports commenters asking whether AI was used to draft or analyse the rule |
| 30 Sep | NTIS (Commerce) | Describes an Army technology-trends report held in its library |
| 30 Sep | Federal Communications Commission | Cites a committee report on AI captioning of live video |
| 1 Oct | Federal Trade Commission | Asks whether a rule would discourage AI-based platform tools |
| 5-6 Oct | Securities and Exchange Commission (three documents) | Exam syllabus topics, data research, and crypto custody questions |
| 7 Oct | Copyright Office (Library of Congress) | Quotes the 2024 Justice Department release on the Smith case |
| 8 Oct | NOAA (Commerce) | Names the Sea Grant Artificial Intelligence Community of Practice |
Why agencies have not rushed to rename AI
Read closely, the table explains why the push to rename AI has stalled on paper. Six of the eleven agency documents come from independent regulators (the Fed, FCC, FTC and three from the SEC) and one from the Copyright Office, which sits in the legislative branch. An order addressed to “executive departments and agencies” may not reach them. The four from executive departments mostly name things the order cannot rename: a survey title, a NOAA programme, an Army report, or a commenter’s question.
The Smith case shows the result. In the same week, the Justice Department called his crime “super intelligence” fraud while a Copyright Office notice discussing the same case said the songs “were created with artificial intelligence (‘AI’)”. One fraud, two vocabularies, two branches of government.
Why the Law Will Not Rename AI on Command
The order concedes this itself, but the scale of the problem is worth spelling out. “Artificial intelligence” is not just a phrase in speeches. It is written into federal law, state law and contracts.
Why statutes block any quick move to rename AI
The definition the order borrows sits in the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, codified at 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). Trump’s own Take It Down Act, Public Law 119-12, defines a “digital forgery” as an intimate image “created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means”. As The Verge notes, agencies “will need to cite” laws like this “when arguing in court”.
Congress and the states
The president “can’t bar Congress from using ‘artificial intelligence'”, Robertson writes, and congressional Republicans must now decide whether to adopt a name that carries “the baggage of Trump’s fairly unpopular pro-industry, anti-regulatory stance”. States are not bound at all. On 30 September, California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered his agencies to keep using “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” “notwithstanding any rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government”. His comment: “Super intelligence is clearly not coming from the White House.”
What it would take
A real legal change would need Congress to pass conforming amendments across every statute that mentions artificial intelligence, the kind of change the proposal due on 28 November must assess. Until then, any federal effort to rename AI applies only to the government’s own unofficial prose, and only where the law allows.
The Superintelligence Collision: Rename AI and Lose a Word
The deepest problem is that “super intelligence” already meant something. As one word, “superintelligence” was popularised by philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book of that name, and it describes hypothetical systems far more capable than any human, not the chatbots and recommendation engines of today.
Two meanings, one sound
David Krueger, an AI professor who founded the nonprofit Evitable, put it bluntly in comments reported by Cryptopolitan: “Superintelligence is already a word, and it means something different than AI.” The Verge notes that the industry uses it, alongside “artificial general intelligence”, to describe what comes after today’s technology. Meta and Microsoft had already named teams around it.
The regulatory tangle
The collision is sharpest in Congress. In early September, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar announced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would permanently ban development of superintelligence, pause “advanced AI development” until safety standards exist, and threaten developers with up to 20 years in prison. Under the White House’s new vocabulary, a ban on superintelligence sounds like a ban on all of AI. That is a gift to opponents of the bill and a headache for everyone trying to read it.
Marketing loses a word too
For companies, Robertson argues, forcing SI on everything “undercuts companies’ ability to promote big, new, flashy AI products as ‘superintelligent'”, because the label now covers “everything from a future machine god to years-old music-slop generation tools”.
What the Public Thinks of the Bid to Rename AI
The rename was pitched as a fix for AI’s image. The polling suggests the image problem is about the technology, not the word.
Voters reject the attempt to rename AI
A YouGov poll reported by Axios found 53% of Americans preferred “artificial intelligence” and just 9% preferred “super intelligence”. That is a margin of 44 points for the term the government is told not to acknowledge. We have also reported that a Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73% of Americans put AI safety ahead of staying ahead of rivals, in our coverage of the new Super Intelligence Force.
Concerns the name cannot touch
Robertson identifies the concrete grievances: “A lot of Americans have tangible gripes with the industry, particularly around data centers, and insisting the tech is ‘super’ does nothing to assuage these concerns.” Even on the right, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis responded to Huang’s new phrase on 30 September with “Superintelligence factories = surveillance centers”. We looked at how little consumers are paying for the technology, whatever its name, in Call it AI, call it super intelligence, only 2% are buying it.
The only boom so far: Slovenian domains
One market has responded to the plan to rename AI. The .si suffix is Slovenia’s country code, and Forbes, citing the BBC, reported that Registry SI recorded 44,000 new .si registrations in September, a 2,199% increase on August. That implies about 1,914 in August (44,000 ÷ 22.99). Speculators, at least, believe in SI.
Why Trump's Plan to Rename AI Differs From His Other Renames
Trump has renamed things successfully before, and the Verge piece starts there. He turned “fake news” from a description of scam sites into an insult for the press, and his nicknames for opponents stuck. The question is why the move to rename AI looks weaker.
What his other renames had in common
| Rename | What the government controls | Outside adoption |
|---|---|---|
| Gulf of America (2025) | Official US place-name records | Mixed: US map apps switched for American users; the Associated Press did not |
| Department of War (2025) | A secondary title for its own department | Formal change still needs Congress |
| Super Intelligence (2026) | Executive branch prose only | A handful of executives; 9% of the public |
The pattern is clear, and it explains why the drive to rename AI is harder. The earlier renames applied to proper nouns that the federal government officially records or owns. “Artificial intelligence” is a common noun, the name of an academic field, a phrase in statutes, and a term in millions of contracts. No government owns it.
Catchy beats correct
The Verge’s sharpest point is about tone. Trump’s “linguistic victories typically work when they’re catchy”, Robertson writes, while “‘Super intelligence,’ by contrast, simply comes off as a euphemism”. The piece concludes that the escalating attempts to strong-arm people into the term make Trump, “and the industry itself”, “look awfully weak”.
Pejoratives travel further
The new campaign may yet succeed in reverse. “Artificial” is entering Trump’s vocabulary as an insult. He has said the “fake news media” will now be the “artificial media”, and at a 5 October rally he called concerns about war driving up prices “just artificial”. Insults are the kind of word his followers have adopted before.
What the Order to Rename AI Means for Businesses
For most companies, the practical answer is: very little, and there is no need to rename AI in your own documents, as long as you keep them precise. But three groups should pay attention.
US government suppliers
Expect “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in agency correspondence, websites and some solicitations. The order does not change existing contracts or grants, and the definition is the statutory one, so “SI” in a request for proposals means AI as the law defines it. Use both terms in responses where it helps evaluators search, and do not rewrite contracts to chase the new name. Our IT governance team can review terminology in policies and bids.
UK and European companies need not rename AI
Nothing changes in law. The EU AI Act regulates “AI systems”, and UK guidance uses AI. US-facing marketing may want to mention SI where a buyer uses it, but customers still search for AI, and 53% of Americans prefer the old term. Keep “AI” as the primary word.
Everyone writing AI policies
Add a definitions clause stating that references to artificial intelligence include systems described as “Super Intelligence” or “SI”. It costs one sentence and removes any doubt if a US partner, regulator or customer switches vocabulary. Then track the 28 November proposal, which could change the US definition itself. Our AI strategy service covers policy reviews like this.
What Happens Next in the Bid to Rename AI
Three dates and decisions will show whether the move to rename AI has legs.
The 28 November definition
The proposal due from the president’s science adviser must assess whether “Super Intelligence” should “modify, expand upon, or otherwise supersede” the statutory definition. A broader definition would matter far more than the name, because it could change which systems fall under federal rules.
Whether SpaceXSI actually happens
Musk’s rename is the most concrete corporate test. If the company formally changes its name, others in the president’s circle may follow. If it quietly stays SpaceXAI, the industry will read that too.
Whether the record changes
The Federal Register is the scoreboard. If agency documents begin to say “super intelligence” in the coming weeks, the order is working inside government. If the next ten days look like the first ten, with two presidential uses and dozens of agency uses of the old phrase, the effort to rename AI will remain what The Verge calls it: awfully artificial.
Questions About the Order to Rename AI
Has Trump officially renamed AI?
Only inside the executive branch, and only for non-statutory documents “to the maximum extent permitted by law”. Executive Order 14434 does not change any statute, regulation, contract or state law.
What does “SI” mean in US government documents?
“Super Intelligence” or “SI” means the technologies covered by “artificial intelligence” in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). Legally it is the same thing under a new name.
Is super intelligence the same as superintelligence?
No. “Superintelligence”, one word, usually means hypothetical AI far beyond human ability. The order applies the two-word phrase to all AI, which is why researchers call it confusing.
Do companies have to stop saying AI?
No. The order binds federal executive agencies only. California has ordered its agencies to keep using “artificial intelligence”, and businesses are free to use either term.
When will the rename become law?
Only if Congress acts. The president’s science adviser must propose legislative language by 28 November 2026.
References
Trump’s attempt to rename AI is looking awfully artificial (The Verge)
Executive Order 14434: Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Federal Register)
Music Streaming Fraud, notice of inquiry (US Copyright Office via govinfo)
Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (NIST)
Trump signs order renaming AI ‘Super Intelligence’ (The Verge)
Man behind $8M AI song and bot streaming fraud sentenced to 18 months (Music Business Worldwide)
Musk says SpaceXAI will rebrand to SpaceXSI (Forbes)
Newsom rejects Trump’s super intelligence rebrand (Forbes)
Jeff Bezos on AI and the SI name (Forbes)
Poll: Americans prefer AI to super intelligence (Newsmax)
Musk goes all-in on the AI-to-SI rebrand as other chiefs hold back (Cryptopolitan)
Trump tells UN he is renaming AI based on a social media poll (The New Republic)
Take It Down Act, Public Law 119-12 (govinfo)
Sanders, Casar call for artificial superintelligence ban (The Hill)
Jensen Huang on the White House Accord on Super Intelligence (X)
More AI coverage: explore Progressive Robot's AI Models, Tools & Releases hub — hands-on reviews, setup guides and benchmarks in one place.
