Trump's 'Super Intelligence' Rebrand: Right on AI Substance, Wrong on Renaming Strategy
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "‘Super Intelligence’ Is the ‘Lake America’ of Neologisms | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." October 2, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that Trump is right that AI is a huge deal and shouldn't be held back by unfounded fears, but his idea of fixing AI's bad reputation by renaming it 'Super Intelligence' is a silly gimmick that won't work. Just like people still call it the 'Kennedy Center' and 'Lake Ontario' despite official renaming attempts, people will keep saying 'AI' no matter what the government calls it.
Conclusion
President Trump correctly understands AI's transformative importance and rightly opposes stifling it, but his executive order mandating the term 'Super Intelligence' replace 'Artificial Intelligence' is a superficial rebranding effort that will fail to change public perception or usage.
Premises
- Trump's instinct that AI has a 'marketing problem' driven by irrational fears (job loss, Skynet-style scenarios) has some validity
- Trump's view that AI represents a transformative, industrial-revolution-scale technological shift is more accurate than his critics' dismissals
- Legitimate AI concerns (energy/utility strain from data centers, worker displacement) exist but are manageable policy problems, not reasons to resist AI progress
- Opposing AI's advancement mainly benefits foreign competitors like China, who would gain ground if the U.S. succumbs to populist anti-AI sentiment
- Renaming 'artificial intelligence' to 'super intelligence' via executive order is a euphemism treadmill exercise that doesn't address substantive concerns
- Historical precedent shows government-mandated name changes (Lake Ontario/'Lake America', Kennedy Center) fail to change how ordinary people actually speak
- If 'super intelligence' catches on at all, it will likely become a joke or mockery term among AI skeptics, undermining the rebrand's purpose
Assumptions
- Public perception of technology is shaped more by actual experience and organic language use than by official terminology
- Government executive orders have limited power to control colloquial language
- Market disruption from new technologies ultimately benefits society in the long run, as historical examples (automobiles replacing horse-and-buggy) suggest
- China and other foreign competitors would advance AI regardless of U.S. public opinion, making domestic anti-AI sentiment a self-inflicted handicap
- The problems with AI's public image stem from irrational fear rather than legitimate substantive objections