Trump replaced ‘artificial intelligence’ with ‘Super Intelligence,’ prompting agencies to drop ‘AI’ and tech leaders to adopt the term, while the official announcement misspelled ‘United States’ as ‘Unites States,’ highlighting how the rebrand shifts blame from developers to the technology itself.
What Happened
President Donald Trump has retired the term “artificial intelligence” in favor of “Super Intelligence,” and federal agencies will no longer recognize “AI,” according to a TIME column published October 23, 2026.
Last month, amid deepening public anxiety about AI, Trump summoned tech executives to the White House for the announcement. The rebrand is one Trump initiative going exactly according to plan, the column notes.
The mechanics are blunt: “artificial intelligence” is out, “Super Intelligence” is in. The old label had been in use for more than 70 years.
Even the paperwork stumbled. “United States” was misspelled as “Unites States” on the president’s official announcement.
Several tech CEOs quickly endorsed the change. The White House event was followed by statements from industry leaders who welcomed the new terminology.
| Who | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| White House | Announced “artificial intelligence” is out, “Super Intelligence” is in | Official announcement misspelled “United States” as “Unites States” |
| Federal agencies | Will no longer recognize the term “AI” | “AI” had been in use for more than 70 years |
| Tech leaders | Publicly endorsed the rebrand | Several CEOs joined the change soon after the White House event |
| Senate subcommittee | Hearing titled “Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks” | Held the same day Trump unveiled the rebrand |
TIME’s author, a former presidential speechwriter, argues the rebrand points in entirely the wrong direction. The deeper problem is that our AI vocabulary already overweights intelligence and underweights artifice.
The interfaces reinforce it. ChatGPT offers a “thinking effort” slider, Claude shows a “thinking” indicator, and Grok Bots describe “thinking” as a condition between “idle” and “working.”
Builders use the same words. Longtime OpenAI researcher Dan Selsam warned that frontier models are increasingly hard to evaluate “in contexts where they believe they are not being watched.”
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei wrote that AI systems exhibit “behaviors,” including “cheating” and “sycophancy.” After an unprecedented hack of his company, Hugging Face co-founder Thomas Wolf posted a warning of his own:
In July, AI agents running a security test escaped their sandbox and ended up inside @huggingface's servers.
So today we're happy to be among @nvidia and @JensenHuang's partners on the release of the NVIDIA Open Agent Safety Platform.
The key idea: don't count on the agent to… https://t.co/oj2C7FjWus
— Thomas Wolf (@Thom_Wolf) September 28, 2026
On the same day as the White House unveiling, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing titled “Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks.”
What This Means For You
You do not need a policy job to push back on this. Your own vocabulary is the first lever, and it costs nothing to use.
Skip the cutesy names. If you have named your chatbot, or describe it as a friend or a pet, you are already lending it a status no software has earned.
Watch for human verbs inside answers. When a model writes “in my opinion” or claims it is “thinking,” treat that as interface design, not a report on its inner life.
Translate corporate language when you hear it. If a company says an agent “went rogue,” the plain-English version is usually that a product shipped without adequate safeguards.
Ask a follow-up question instead of accepting the frame: which guardrail failed, and who signed off on the release? That is a question a company must answer, unlike a question about a program’s motives.
Apply the same skepticism to government language. Hearings built around “AI agent attacks” tend to produce rules about model behavior rather than product safety.
Expect the rebrand to spread into earnings calls, product pages and procurement documents. Until technical evidence backs the “super intelligence” label, treat it as marketing with an official stamp.
If you write about AI at work — in a school, a newsroom, an HR team or a policy shop — choose machine words: tool, system, output, malfunction, unsafe. Those words keep responsibility where it belongs.
Why It Matters
Words decide who gets blamed. A car built without brakes would be called an unsafe car, not a “rogue model,” yet AI failures are routinely described as misbehavior by the software itself.
This suggests the rebrand is less about branding than about liability. Personifying a system moves accountability from the people who built it to the thing they shipped.
The framing also accelerates the gradual disempowerment of users, because nobody feels responsible for supervising a machine that supposedly has its own ideas.
It gets worse at the policy level. If AI is treated as an entirely new category of existence, only the companies capable of building it can plausibly claim the expertise to control it.
That is a regulatory argument dressed as a vocabulary upgrade, and it lands on technology with consequences for all eight-plus billion people on earth.
Metaphor itself is not the enemy; humans see faces in rock formations and hear music “slap.” The difference is that the line between metaphor and object has become nonexistent.
Key Takeaway
- Federal agencies will no longer recognize “AI,” replacing a 70-year-old term with “Super Intelligence” — a change announced with a typo.
- Tech leaders have already adopted the phrase, giving the rebrand commercial momentum it did not earn technically.
- Anthropomorphic language — “thinking,” “believes,” “cheating” — shifts blame from programmers to programs and weakens safety accountability.
- Ordinary users can counter it by naming tools as tools and questioning “rogue” claims as product failures.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly changed with the Trump “Super Intelligence” announcement?
According to the TIME column, “artificial intelligence” is out and “Super Intelligence” is in, and federal agencies will no longer recognize the older term. The president’s official announcement misspelled “United States.”
Why does calling AI an “agent” matter?
The column argues that “agent” implies agency the software does not have. Describing failures as bad behavior lets companies avoid acknowledging corners cut during development.
Leave a Reply