What happened
The US State Department issued a directive requiring US diplomats to use the term 'superintelligence' (SI) instead of 'artificial intelligence' (AI) in all communications. President Trump publicly advocated for this rebranding at the United Nations General Assembly, claiming the new term is more accurate and elegant. While the US administration stated that Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to the terminology change during their summit, China's official summary did not adopt the term, and its foreign ministry has not confirmed the switch.
According to the South China Morning Post, the US State Department ordered US diplomats to use the term 'superintelligence' (SI) instead of 'artificial intelligence' (AI) in all communications moving forward. This directive was reported by the Associated Press on Wednesday, following President Donald Trump's remarks at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
President Trump stated that all US government documents, and 'hopefully the world’s', should use the term 'superintelligence' to refer to the technology. He described the change as 'much more elegant' and 'much more accurate,' noting that the word 'artificial' makes the technology 'sound fake.' The timing of this push coincided with his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington.
The Trump administration highlighted the terminology change in its summary of the summit outcomes, claiming that President Xi agreed to use the term 'super intelligence' rather than 'artificial intelligence.' However, China’s own eight-point summary of the summit’s achievements, released on Saturday, did not use the new terminology, referring instead to a 'China-US AI dialogue.'
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson did not confirm whether Beijing would adopt the new term, stating only that China 'attaches importance to the position of the US side and respects their choice of the term.' The report notes that 'AI' is the long-established term for the branch of computer science, while 'SI' typically refers to a hypothetical system that vastly exceeds human intelligence, a concept with significant scientific and safety implications.
Why it matters
This directive represents a significant shift in official US government terminology, potentially influencing international diplomatic language and public perception. By replacing the established scientific term 'AI' with 'superintelligence,' the administration may be attempting to reframe the technology's capabilities and risks. This linguistic change coincides with growing public opposition to AI infrastructure and legislative efforts to ban superintelligence, highlighting a strategic effort to control the narrative around advanced machine intelligence.
The shift from 'AI' to 'superintelligence' in official US communications is a notable policy and diplomatic move that may alter how the technology is perceived globally. By adopting a term associated with hypothetical, vastly superior intelligence, the administration may be signaling a focus on the upper bounds of AI capabilities rather than the broader field of machine learning.
This rebranding occurs amid increasing public scrutiny of AI infrastructure, with a recent poll cited in the source indicating that 61% of likely US voters oppose the construction of data centers to power AI. The terminology change may be an attempt to manage public opinion or distinguish current AI systems from the more extreme risks associated with superintelligence.
The divergence in terminology between the US and China highlights ongoing diplomatic complexities. While the US claims agreement on the term, China’s official communications continue to use 'AI,' suggesting that the linguistic alignment is not yet a shared diplomatic reality. This distinction could impact future negotiations on and governance.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Which description best fits "narrow AI", the kind of AI in use today?
What to watch next
Monitor whether other nations or international bodies adopt the 'superintelligence' terminology in official documents. Watch for further legislative actions in the US regarding the definition and regulation of superintelligence, and observe if China's diplomatic language eventually aligns with the US preference or maintains the distinction between AI and SI.
Observe whether the 'superintelligence' terminology gains traction in other international diplomatic forums or if it remains a uniquely US-centric label. The reaction from other AI superpowers and international organizations will indicate the global acceptance of this rebranding.
Monitor legislative developments in the US, particularly the bill introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar to outlaw the development of superintelligence. The administration's push for the term may intersect with these regulatory efforts, potentially influencing the scope and definition of proposed laws.
Watch for further statements from the Chinese government regarding the terminology. If China eventually adopts 'superintelligence' in official communications, it would mark a significant shift in diplomatic language and potentially signal a deeper alignment on the conceptual framing of advanced AI risks.