Executive Order On Renaming AI To ‘Super Intelligence’ Signals Unexpected Legal Bumps Ahead

Backstory About The Meaning Of AI

Before we dive into the new executive order, I’d like to set the stage regarding the definitional history of Artificial Intelligence and AI. For my in-depth coverage on the heady topic, see the link here.

In the mid-1950s, the initial loosey-goosey phrasing of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” was devised. The exact meaning has been fluctuating ever since then. Eventually, it seemed that everyone loved to claim they had created Artificial Intelligence, which was easy to claim since you could make up your own definition or point to a definition that you preferred.

To try and get around the bloating and misuse of the multitude of definitions of AI, an underground movement within the computer science community entailed coming up with two new monikers. One new name was Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). AI was supposedly intelligence of a narrower kind, while AGI would have a full semblance of intelligence on par with that of humans, a generalized form of intelligence that covers all grounds that human intelligence does. The other new name was Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). The idea of ASI was that AGI is a limited construct of intelligence on par with humans, while Artificial Superintelligence would be intelligence that demonstrably surpasses humans, presumably doing so in all respects of whatever human intelligence consists of.

Executive Order On AI To SI

On September 29, 2026, the White House released Executive Order #14434 entitled “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence.” It was accompanied by a great deal of fanfare and was somewhat tied to a prominent AI event at the White House involving big-time AI tech mavens.

There are two main parts to the EO:

• (1) Name swap. Do a word swap for AI and Artificial Intelligence to become SI and Super Intelligence throughout the federal executive branch.
• (2) Define SI. Within 60 days, come up with a definition for SI and Super Intelligence that could be utilized throughout the federal executive branch and potentially elsewhere if other parties are interested in using the definition too.

The first part is considerably straightforward, though as I’ll explain in a moment, it nonetheless does have some potential snags. The second part is going to be akin to opening a can of worms.

The Name Swap

Here is the essence of the name swap portion of the EO (excerpts):

• “(a) To the maximum extent permitted by law, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in place of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the executive branch.”
• “(b) Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents.”

Let’s unpack those stipulations.

Three Crucial Considerations

First, the legal language of this part of the EO provides some room to breathe, including that the name swap is “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” This is important wording. If you originally envisioned that this would merely be a widespread copy-and-paste operation, note that doing so blindly could inadvertently cross the legal line of what is permitted. In that sense, the copy-and-paste ought to have some sobering thought involved and not just be run with abandon. Let’s hope that’s how this is carried out.

Second, the name swap pertains to the federal executive branch, which is noted as “executive departments and agencies”. There is nothing about this EO that attempts to cross over into what Congress is to do, nor what the judicial branch is to do. If it had done so, a heated legal argument would have arisen and probably landed eventually at the door of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, one outside possibility is that those other branches will watch and see how things go with the executive branch and might opt, of their own choosing, to do the same name change (or do nothing; or do something else).

Third, and perhaps the most relieving of the aspects, the name swap is supposed to be on a go-forward basis and not a look-back basis: “Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued” items. If the name swap were to be applied retroactively, it could stir a hornet’s nest of legal issues. Prior contracts and legally binding documents could be reopened as having a new meaning that substantially changes what those items were thought to signify. This would be a problematic headache of epic proportions.

SI And AI Are One And The Same Momentarily

Imagine that there is a federal document that says this:

• “The vendor is to provide Artificial Intelligence (AI) services to the federal agency. AI is defined as a computer system that does X, Y, and Z.”

Under the proviso of the name swap, the language in the document would presumably come out this way:

• “The vendor is to provide Super Intelligence (SI) services to the federal agency. SI is defined as a computer system that does X, Y, and Z.”

Observe that the name swap has preserved the definition of AI, as shown in the second sentence of each of the two versions of the language. In other words, AI was said to consist of X, Y, and Z, and indeed the SI is also said to consist of X, Y, and Z. It is therefore unlikely to raise legally substantial concerns since the definition is preserved. Of course, a lawyer could try to argue that somehow the word “super” has its own connotation, but the counterargument would be that even if it does have a different connotation, the definition remains the same.

The tricky circumstance is when the document in question has no definition of AI at the get-go. In that case, the name swap is going to be more ambiguous. A lawyer could claim that everyone knows what AI is, even though it wasn’t defined in the document, while no one knows for sure what SI is, and it isn’t defined in the document. This could bounce around in the courts.

Defining SI

A means to avoid confusion about what SI means would be to craft a definition for it. That is what the second part of the EO calls for.

Here is a portion of the second stipulation in the EO (excerpts):

• “(a) For purposes of this order, and except where otherwise provided by law, the terms “Super Intelligence” and “SI” mean the technologies and systems encompassed by the term “artificial intelligence” as defined in section 9401(3) of title 15, United States Code.”
• “(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), in consultation with the heads of other agencies as the APST deems appropriate, shall submit to the President proposed legislative language to establish a Federal definition of “Super Intelligence” and “SI” that reflects the capabilities described in section 1 of this order.”

Let’s unpack this second part of the EO.

The SI Interim

First, the EO says that SI and Super Intelligence are going to default to the existing definition of Artificial Intelligence and AI that is commonly used in a specific section of the United States Code. The good news is that this overcomes the earlier noted loophole that if SI and Super Intelligence do not have a formal definition, a lawyer could argue that the meaning has whatever meaning they want it to have. Nope, the meaning is the same as already codified in the United States Code.

Second, the EO says that an effort is to be launched to define SI and Super Intelligence, doing so within 60 days of the released EO (thus, two months after September 29, 2026, or around November 29, 2026). I would wager this is going to be a lot harder to attain than it might seem at first glance. I’ll say more about this shortly.

Third, we seem to have the following conditions underway. A name swap of AI and Artificial Intelligence to SI and Super Intelligence is to get underway right away and focuses on go-forward aspects and not on look-back aspects. Wherever the name swap happens, the meaning of SI and Super Intelligence shall default to the meaning of AI and Artificial Intelligence as already defined in the noted section of the United States Code. This may or may not square with whatever a particular document indicates, since the document might have its own definition of AI and therefore not rely on the definition in the United States Code.

The Clock Is Ticking

The challenge of coming up with a suitable definition for SI and Super Intelligence is a whopper of a problem. Here’s why.

The easiest way to deal with the situation would be to decide that the existing definition of AI and Artificial Intelligence that is stipulated in the specific section of the United States Code is perfectly fine for the definition of SI and Super Intelligence. In that case, the status quo prevails. Henceforth, SI and Super Intelligence are entirely aligned with and in reference to that existing definition. Case closed.

But I doubt that the legal beagle wordsmiths are going to be satisfied with using that same definition. The temptation to craft a new definition will be enormous. They will go back and forth, agonizing over every word, every comma, and every nuance of the new definition for SI and Super Intelligence. Might be fun, and it might also be a huge pressure cooker due to having just 60 days to come up with the ideal or perfect definition.

Legal Can Of Worms

We are now at the edge of the precipice of this saga. Whatever the definition for SI and Super Intelligence turns out to be, it will be subject to all sorts of scrutiny. Why? Because it is going to become the “standard” by which all executive branch federal documents, contracts, and the like will refer, i.e., for that which was once known as AI and Artificial Intelligence (on a go-forward basis).

Suppose that there is a new contract that a federal agency establishes that says this:

• “The vendor is to provide Super Intelligence (SI) services to the federal agency. SI is defined as a computer system that does A, B, and C.”

Please observe that the earlier version of that verbiage said that SI was X, Y, and Z, which was the prevailing definition of AI, but now the new language refers to whatever the new definition of SI is, which I’m pretending is A, B, and C. This ought to raise the hair on the back of your neck.

The reason this is hair-raising is that we have already had various legal wrangling take place about the definition of AI that is X, Y, and Z. To some extent, the legal tripwires are already settled on the X, Y, and Z. The newly defined A, B, and C have not yet met the real world and been tested out in our courts.

So, if you were a vendor, and something went awry with your new federal contract with the executive branch, your lawyer might come up with a legal strategy of trying to attack the new definition of SI. Go into court and claim that A, B, C has this or that meaning, or is meaningless, or whatever. A new can of worms is going to be ready, willing, and able to be opened.

It Can Spread Wide And Far

If the hair is up on your neck, I’ll add to this and give you some chilling shivers up the spine. The odds are that whatever definition is devised for SI and Super Intelligence by the executive branch, the other branches of the federal government might also adopt it. The gist is that this opens the door to legal attacks on them too, once again due to a newly minted definition that has not stood the test of time.

Worse still, the chances are that U.S. states might adopt the SI and Super Intelligence definition, and so might local cities, counties, and other municipalities. They too will potentially fall into the same potential legal quagmire. The SI definition could readily spread throughout the country. It silently sits there, unobtrusively, waiting until some enterprising lawyer is called upon to fight a legal case and realizes that they have their best shot at winning by taking down the freshly devised definition of SI and Super Intelligence.

Eye On The Future

My point is not that we shouldn’t consider coming up with a definition for SI and Super Intelligence. The crux is that unless it is precisely the same as the AI definition that we already have in hand, the new kid in town is going to be subject to some potential bruising. We must prepare ourselves for this eventuality. Furthermore, the composition of the definition needs to be as airtight as humanly possible. Or maybe as SI as possible.

A final thought for now. Nathaniel Hawthorne famously made this remark about words: “Words — so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.” The second shoe to fall on the recently released EO is that sometime in perhaps December of this year, we will have an opportunity to see what SI and Super Intelligence are going to be defined as.

Let’s hope it is wording of such a caliber that it will minimize and mitigate the legal battles that might otherwise be spurred by the seemingly simple act of making a name change when it comes to AI and Artificial Intelligence. SI and Super Intelligence, here we come.