From AI to SI: The Political Rename of Superintelligence

Overview

In a move that has accelerated the rebranding of artificial intelligence in American public life, Elon Musk announced on X this morning that he is retiring the term AI in favor of SI. By lunchtime in Berlin, the post had garnered 2.8 million views, and Musk had already agreed to rename SpaceX’s AI division to SpaceXSI.

This individual pivot follows a broader mandate issued by the Trump administration. On September 29, President Trump signed an executive order requiring all US federal agencies to refer to Super Intelligence rather than Artificial Intelligence in any applicable setting. When questioned about the terminology shift, President Trump stated simply, “We’re using the word super because the other word is a fake word.”

Critics argue that the change is purely semantic, noting that the legal definitions and operational realities of these systems remain unchanged despite the new label.

The Policy Behind the Rename

The executive order, titled Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence, serves as the regulatory backbone for this linguistic shift. Its first section argues that contemporary systems “do much more than imitate or automate discrete aspects of human intelligence,” suggesting that the previous term was insufficiently descriptive.

However, Section 3 of the order maintains that Super Intelligence means precisely what federal law already called “artificial intelligence.” The definition provided describes a machine-based system capable of making predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments based on human-defined objectives.

The White House fact sheet goes further than the order itself, citing “the limitless promise it offers the American people” and “limitless opportunities.”

While no private entity is legally bound to follow this guidance, the tech industry has already begun aligning with the new vocabulary. In June 2025, Meta named its research lab the Meta Superintelligence Labs, and Microsoft established a dedicated superintelligence team that November.

The Gap Between Terminology and Reality

Despite the high-profile adoption of the term SI, the capabilities of current systems have not changed. In the field of AI research, superintelligence traditionally refers to a machine that surpasses human performance at virtually every cognitive task. No such system exists today.

Current models are adept at specific tasks but show significant variability in performance. Studies indicate that in areas where users rely heavily on these tools, performance can actually decline compared to individuals working without assistance. The rename, therefore, does not reflect an increase in capability but rather a shift in perception.

Furthermore, the executive order’s language mirrors religious and almost theological claims. Phrases like “limitless promise” echo biblical descriptions of divine understanding, which Psalmists describe as having “no limit.” This rhetorical framing raises questions about whether the administration is attempting to elevate the status of technology beyond its actual engineering roots.

Historical and Theological Parallels

The phenomenon of renaming objects to disguise their origins is not new. The narrative draws parallels to the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32. In this account, the Israelites pressured Aaron to create a deity. Aaron collected their gold jewelry, melted it in a fire, and fashioned a calf.

When Moses confronted Aaron, the latter offered a remarkably evasive explanation: “I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.” The text notes that Aaron had an engraving tool in his hand just twenty verses earlier, meaning he crafted the idol himself. The rename strips away the agency of the creator, allowing the object to appear as if it emerged spontaneously from natural forces.

Just as the calf was made from the people’s own earrings, language models are constructed from human-generated text—books, code, forums, and Wikipedia—recast to appear autonomous.

Theologian John Calvin described the human mind as a “perpetual forge of idols,” noting that the mind conceives the idol while the hand gives it birth. The Latin root ingenium, from which we derive “ingenuity” and “engineer,” relates to this creative faculty. Ironically, the executive order claims these systems “amplify human ingenuity,” a phrase that underscores the very human effort behind the technology while simultaneously obscuring it through grandiose labeling.

Implications for Industry and Public Discourse

The shift from AI to SI represents a strategic decoupling of technology from its artificial origins. By adopting the term Super Intelligence, proponents aim to frame these tools as amplifications of human potential rather than manufactured substitutes.

However, this rebranding risks creating a disconnect between public expectation and technological reality. As Alan Jacobs noted in 2017, the computer is often viewed through a lens of near-mystical capability. The executive order’s rhetoric may deepen this misperception, encouraging a form of technological adoration that ignores the engineered nature of the systems.

For professionals in the field, the change is largely cosmetic. The laws, ethics, and engineering challenges remain those of artificial intelligence, regardless of the label applied by federal decree. The debate now centers on whether semantic changes can genuinely alter the societal impact of powerful new technologies, or if they merely serve to sanctify what humans have built.