Trump Announces Use of 'Super Intelligence' in All U.S. Official Documents at UN General Assembly Speech
Trump announced at the UN General Assembly that from now on, all official U.S. documents will use "super intelligence" (超级智能, abbreviated as si) instead of "artificial intelligence" (人工智能, abbreviated as ai), and expressed hope that the whole world would adopt this new terminology.
Just before the UN speech, Trump had already posted on Truth Social to pave the way for this renaming, stating that the term "artificial intelligence" is "inaccurate and not elegant enough," and listed several alternatives, including "superior intelligence," "extreme intelligence," and "supreme intelligence," all pointing to si.
At the UN podium, Trump officially decided to use "super" instead of "artificial," saying, "From now on, all U.S. documents, and I hope documents worldwide, will use the more accurate term 'super' instead of 'artificial,'" and welcomed everyone to the new world of super intelligence (si).
Trump directly linked this renaming to global technological competition, stating, "In the past, people talked about who wins the ai race; now I want to say, whoever wins si, whoever wins super intelligence, wins," tying the terminology change to the narrative of national competition.
Trump also stated, "I will not stifle a technological growth that is greater than the industrial revolution," signaling a relaxed regulatory attitude towards this technology; he mentioned that the U.S. is "significantly ahead" of China in this technology and that the current administration's goal is to maintain U.S. leadership in the field of super intelligence.
Formally, this statement is a verbal declaration and terminology initiative by the president during a UN speech, rather than an official executive order. It is currently unclear how this terminology change will be implemented in the formal document system of U.S. federal government departments.
From an industry impact perspective, if the term "super intelligence (si)" is officially adopted by the federal government document system, the direct beneficiaries will be leading U.S. AI labs that have already used terms like "super intelligence" in marketing and policy communication, aligning their narrative with official terminology. Institutions and media that continue to use the term "artificial intelligence" may face communication costs due to inconsistency with official language. More deeply, this renaming does not involve direct financial flows but indirectly enhances the bargaining position of leading U.S. AI companies in global narratives and financing stories by reinforcing the narrative of "U.S. dominance in defining the next generation of technology nomenclature."
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The Trump administration has repeatedly reshaped policy narratives by changing official terminology since taking office. A typical previous case was the request for federal government documents and map services to rename "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America," and the Associated Press (AP) was excluded from the White House press pool for refusing to follow this renaming. The change from "artificial intelligence" to "super intelligence" is an extension of the same approach of "redefining reality through official terminology" in the field of technology policy.
This renaming does not involve direct allocation or mobilization of federal funds, but Trump directly links "who wins si" to national competition and clearly states that he "will not stifle" the growth of this technology, signaling that the federal level is likely to continue a relaxed regulatory attitude towards this technology, unlike the EU and other jurisdictions that promote strong regulatory frameworks. This policy stance will influence capital flows—encouraging more venture capital and corporate capital to continue betting on domestic foundational model companies in the U.S. without worrying about significant compliance costs in the short term.
This approach of "defining technology narratives through naming rights, thereby influencing industry competition patterns" is not uncommon historically. For example, during the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union competed for the priority definition of technology under the narrative framework of the "space race." In recent years, the EU has established a regulatory definition framework for the term "AI" through the AI Act, attempting to seize the initiative in global regulatory standard-setting. Trump's replacement of "artificial intelligence" with "super intelligence" is a bid for a leading position in the global competition for technology standards and discourse power.
This action essentially belongs to the narrative prelude on the path of regulatory change—before specific regulatory rules are determined, the official terminology is replaced to lock in the narrative of "U.S. dominance in defining the next generation of intelligent technology." This mechanism is effective because the naming rights of technology itself will influence subsequent standard-setting, media reporting frameworks, and even the default vocabulary system in international treaty negotiations. Once a major country takes the lead in writing its preferred terminology into official documents, other countries and international organizations often need to discuss within this established vocabulary framework during subsequent coordination processes. This makes what seems like a simple renaming action strategically significant for preemptively positioning future regulatory discourse power.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Whoever defines the name first, defines the rules first.
Changing a word is the starting point for changing a narrative.
Not regulating is also a competitive strategy.