特朗普的“超级情报”忠诚度测试
在试图重新命名“大赦国际”的一个月后，这个词就不再流行。 不过这无疑会玷污我们有关AI的全国性对话。
这个故事最初出现在我们关于AI的每周通讯The Algorithm上。 要把这样的故事放进你的收件箱先在这里签名
9月底，特朗普总统签署了一项仅包含一项指令的行政命令，命令政府机构将他们一直称之为“超级情报”的人工智能重新命名。 这一术语打败了其他竞争者，包括几个星期前总统在X的民调中提出的“极端情报”和“最高情报”。
重新品牌当然是现在的白宫传统：特朗普改名为预测美国在某些水体(美国湾和美国湖)的主导地位，以示新的体制优先事项(战争部)，或者只是将他的印记留到尖端的地方(参见目前为改名肯尼迪中心而进行的斗争).
之所以改变这个名字，是因为今天的人工智能系统“增强人类的智慧”，而不仅仅是“模仿”智能，政府的术语应该反映这一点。 但是，如果这种重新品牌遵循别人的模式，其效果将超越政府。
这将把文字的选择变成政治忠诚的考验：使用新名词的人表示效忠政府，而那些没有成为攻击标记的人(回顾特朗普政府禁止美联社在新闻发布后
但大多数美国人数月前都没想过纽约和加拿大之间的大湖叫什么另一方面，大赦国际是我国对话的中心，三分之二的美国人报告说每周进行多次互动。 这也许是最大胆的重塑
一个月后
让我们从政府本身开始。 " 超级情报 " 一词，或者简单地说 " SI " 一词，现在更多地出现在政府的邀约中，就像移民和海关执法部门要求各公司为ICE拘留设施建立 " SI权力 " 的监视。 在大多数政府网站，一些机构，包括国家卫生研究所，现在有一个横幅警告参观者，他们可能在过渡时期看到新的和旧的术语。
有打嗝过。 五角大楼宣布是研究战争未来的一项雄心勃勃的新举措，称为Meridian计划；它使用了旧名词。 联邦贸易委员会上周发布的新闻稿用的是“超级情报”，而不是总统订购的两字资本化版本，最近来自卫生与公众服务的报纸发布没有显示新语言的迹象。
近些年来，诸如五角大楼的数码与人工情报处处长(称行政命令不适用于先前发布的条例或文件)等
至于政府雇员，“SI”而不是“AI”似乎需要时间卷起舌头。 我在几周前采访的一家国家实验室的一名研究员多次使用“AI”，然后牧羊人才承认这一失误。 甚至国防部长Pete Hegseth也在10月3日的一次采访中使用了“AI”。
但特朗普的其他重塑表明，这是为了改变我们其他人说话的方式。
在过去的几周里，川普总统在"真理社会"(Treal Social)上的大部分职位都得到了中期候选人的认可。 但10月27日，他从竞选中抽出时间批评华尔街日报没有使用“超级情报”“几乎所有人都在使用这个名字，或者很快会使用这个名字 ”。 他提出，新规则不久将比行政命令更进一步，彻底禁止政府文件中的“人工情报”。
但《华尔街日报》并不孤单：即使是Newsmax
大科技高管是排队吗？这很复杂。 特朗普总统签署改版令的当天，他还签下了无约束力的关于AI安全的声明，即"关于超级情报的白宫协议"，六位科技界最有权势的人签署了该协议：Google的孙达尔·皮猜，Meta的达里奥·阿莫代，Meta的马克·扎克伯格，OpenAI的格雷格·布洛克曼，xAI的埃隆·穆斯克和Nvidia的詹森·黄。
但即使是这批人
在对第三季度收入呼吁的分析中，加拿大国家广播公司报告说，只有Zuckerberg和Musk一致使用这一术语。 Meta从去年起就一直说“超级情报”。 他甚至承诺将SpaceXAI改名为SpaceXSI。 穆斯克本人在X上发布时仍然混合了SI和AI.
Amazon、Microsoft和Alphabet公司的行政主管在他们的通话中使用了“AI ”，尽管Microsoft公司最近给股东的信提到了“超级情报时代 ”。 黄帝提到这个词
对这一重新品牌项目的一个反对意见是，它将花费时间和纳税人美元。 Salesforce首席执行官Marc Benioff的特权是决定SIForce比AIForce更合适，但政府雇员现在花时间编写指导指南，说明各部门应如何浏览重新品牌。 而且，根据行政命令，联邦机构领导人必须集中他们的头目，起草一个新的“超级情报”立法定义，由总统在本月底之前管理。
但我更担心这对我们关于AI的全国性对话有何影响，我经常在杂货店或咖啡店听到陌生人，但令人振奋的是，我常常看到人们普遍希望对这一技术如何改变他们的生活有发言权。
人们可能对于AI有完全不同的感受，包括公然的敌意，但是这些分歧还没有清晰地映射到党派分歧上
如果“超级情报”变成忠诚的考验，情况就不再如此。 很容易想象，两个人在谈论，比如说，聊天机器人对我们的心理健康是好是坏，一旦他们意识到其中一人说“超级智能 ”，而另一人说“AI ”，就会停止。 这会是我们所有人的耻辱。
中期选举是明天。 美国人说，AI在这场选举中对他们来说比环境和气候政策更重要(民主党甚至将其排在堕胎和枪械政策之上). 我们才刚刚开始讨论AI对我们生命的意义。 将术语本身变成忠诚的测试
深潜
人工智能
不要被愚弄-LLMs没有道理
AlphaGo对阵Go冠军李赛铎十年后
“我们看错了”：破坏AI世界的爆炸性说法
他的2.6万字的病毒博客文章中
别被这个夏日的爱尔胡同所愚弄
关于AGI的无呼吸声称和新能力在严格审查下迅速瓦解。
美国花费数十亿用于边境监视。 为何不能在人们死前抓住他们？
监视塔日益由大赦国际提供动力，它保证对过境点作出更快的反应。 我们对塔台附近死亡事件的调查发现，它们未能交付。
保持连接
从
麻省理工学院技术审查
发现特别的报价，顶级故事，即将到来的事件等等。
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Here’s who is falling in line for Trump’s “Super Intelligence” loyalty test
One month into the attempted rebrand of “AI,” the term is not catching on. But it’s sure to muddy our national conversation about AI anyway.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
At the end of September, President Trump signed an executive order that contained just one directive, ordering government agencies to rebrand what they had been calling artificial intelligence as “Super Intelligence.” That term beat out other contenders, including “Extreme Intelligence” and “Supreme Intelligence,” offered by the president in a poll on X a couple of weeks earlier.
Rebrands are, of course, now a White House tradition: Trump has changed names to project US dominance of certain bodies of water (the Gulf of America and Lake America), to signal new institutional priorities (Department of War), or simply to leave his mark on storied places (see the ongoing fight over renaming the Kennedy Center).
The stated reason for this name change is that today’s AI systems “amplify human ingenuity” rather than merely “imitate” intelligence, and the government’s terminology should reflect that. But if this rebrand follows the pattern of others, its effects will extend beyond government.
It will turn a choice of words into a political loyalty test: Those who use the new term demonstrate allegiance to the administration, and those who don’t become marks for attacks (recall that the Trump administration barred the Associated Press from some White House press events after the news outlet did not adopt the term “Gulf of America”).
But most Americans go months without ever pondering what to call the major lake between New York and Canada. AI, on the other hand, is at the center of our national conversation and a technology two-thirds of Americans report interacting with multiple times a week. It might be the boldest rebrand yet.
So one month in, who’s on board?
Let’s start with the government itself. The term “Super Intelligence”—or simply “SI”—now appears more often on government solicitations, like a new request by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for companies to build “SI-powered” surveillance for ICE detention facilities. The new term has been swapped in silently on most government websites. Some, including that of the National Institutes of Health, now include a banner warning visitors they might see both the new and the old terms during the transition period.
There have been hiccups. A day after the rebrand order, the Pentagon announced an ambitious new initiative to study the future of warfare, called Project Meridian; it used the old terminology. A Federal Trade Commission press release last week used “superintelligence” instead of the two-word, capitalized version ordered by the president, and recent press releases from Health and Human Services show no sign of the new language.
The term “AI” will likely stick around given the countless AI-related offices, initiatives, and programs that have sprung up in recent years, like the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office at the Pentagon (the executive order says it doesn’t apply to previously issued regulations or documents).
As for government employees, it appears to be taking time for “SI” rather than “AI” to roll off the tongue. One researcher at a national lab I interviewed a few weeks ago used “AI” repeatedly before sheepishly acknowledging the slip-up. Even Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used “AI” in an interview on October 3.
But Trump’s other rebrands suggest the goal isn’t merely to change the government’s vocabulary. It’s to change how the rest of us speak, too.
In the past couple of weeks, most of President Trump’s posts on Truth Social have been endorsements for candidates in the midterms. But on October 27 he took a break from electioneering to criticize the Wall Street Journal for not using “Super Intelligence,” “the name which virtually everyone else is using, or soon will be.” He suggested that a new rule will soon go further than the executive order to outright ban “artificial intelligence” from government documents.
But the Wall Street Journal is not alone: Even Newsmax, an outlet whose founder described it as “supportive of the President and his policies,” isn’t using the president’s preferred term.
Are Big Tech executives falling in line? It’s complicated. The same day that President Trump signed the rebranding order, he also released a nonbinding statement on AI safety, the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, signed by six of the most powerful people in tech: Sundar Pichai of Google, Dario Amodei of Anthropic, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Greg Brockman of OpenAI, Elon Musk of xAI, and Jensen Huang of Nvidia.
But even among this group—three members of which attended Trump’s inauguration—the term has not caught on.
In an analysis of third-quarter earnings calls, CNBC reported that only Zuckerberg and Musk used the term consistently. But Zuckerberg doesn’t quite count: Meta has been saying “superintelligence” since last year anyway. Musk’s companies seem to use the term the most—and he even pledged to rename SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI. Musk himself still mixes SI and AI when posting on X.
Executives from Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet used “AI” in their calls, though Microsoft’s recent letter to shareholders referred to the “Super Intelligence era.” Huang has referenced the term but still uses AI too.
One objection to this rebranding project is that it will cost time and taxpayer dollars. It is Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff’s prerogative to decide that SIForce is a better name than AIForce and direct his company to implement that change. But government employees are now spending time writing guides on how departments should navigate the rebrand. And, per the executive order, leaders of federal agencies will be required to put their heads together to draft a new legislative definition of “Super Intelligence” to be run by the president by the end of this month.
But I’m more worried about what this does to our national conversation about AI than I am about the potential waste of time and money. Surprisingly often I overhear strangers at a grocery store or coffee shop who have struck up a conversation about AI. The substance of the conversation is rarely uplifting—they most often talk about a jobs apocalypse or AI-powered warfare—but what is heartening is how often I see a widespread desire among people to have a say in how this technology transforms their lives.
People may have wildly different feelings about AI, including outright hostility, but those differences don’t yet map neatly onto the partisan divisions that make it awkward for strangers to discuss immigration or climate change.
If “Super Intelligence” turns into a loyalty test, this will cease to be the case. It’s easy to imagine that two people chatting about, say, whether chatbots are good or bad for our mental health will stop once they realize one of them is saying “super intelligence” and the other “AI.” That would be a shame for us all.
Midterm elections are tomorrow. Americans say AI is more important to them in this election than environmental and climate policy (and Democrats even rank it above abortion and gun policy). We’re only just beginning to have a national conversation about what AI will mean for our lives. Whether or not “Super Intelligence” catches on, turning the terminology itself into a loyalty test will do nothing to advance a national conversation about AI that’s only just getting started.
Deep Dive
Artificial intelligence
Don’t be fooled—LLMs don’t reason
Ten years after AlphaGo’s match against Go champion Lee Sedol, today’s AI still isn’t tapping into the machinery that made that win possible.
“We were looking at it wrong”: The explosive claim that’s upended the AI world
An exclusive interview with Nick Cammarata, the researcher whose 26,000-word viral blog post has AI safety folks celebrating.
Don’t be fooled by this summer of AI hype
Breathless claims about AGI and new capabilities fall apart pretty quickly under scrutiny.
The US spent billions on border surveillance. Why can’t it catch people before they die?
Surveillance towers, increasingly powered by AI, promised faster responses to crossings. Our investigation of deaths near the towers found they are failing to deliver.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.