Super Intelligence: New name, same management task?
What the US renaming of AI actually changes — and why businesses should assess capabilities, not labels.
AI has not suddenly been renamed Super Intelligence everywhere. On 29 September 2026, President Donald Trump ordered the US executive branch to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” instead of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI”, to the maximum extent permitted by law. This is a terminology requirement for the federal executive branch, not a worldwide renaming of AI. For decision-makers, three questions matter: what has been renamed, what does the technical term mean, and what actually changes in the business?
What is superintelligence?
In its established technical usage, artificial superintelligence, often abbreviated ASI, describes the idea of a system with intellectual capabilities exceeding those of humans. IBM describes it as hypothetical. It is therefore more than another name for a chatbot or an AI assistant. A political label does not establish that a particular system has those capabilities.
This is the important distinction for me: a name does not tell you whether a tool works reliably in your organisation. An impressive demonstration, a scientific vision of the future and a dependable business process are three different things.
What did the US government actually change?
The order covers official correspondence, public communications and non-statutory executive-branch documents, among other uses. It also directs the president’s science and technology adviser to propose a federal definition. The White House presents the new terminology as reflecting the technology’s opportunities and advancing capabilities. That political rationale should be separated from a technical assessment. The order does not require European businesses to rename their AI strategies.
My view: Do not chase the label
I would not advise a management team to relabel its AI initiatives because of this announcement alone. I would ask whether the capabilities of the systems it uses have changed. Can a system reliably support a previously difficult process? Does it reduce effort after review and correction are included? Does it create customer value somebody would pay for? Those answers, not the headline, justify a different investment decision.
A new term can attract attention. It cannot replace process clarity or accountability. When a supplier talks about Super Intelligence, management should ask for a specific task description, reproducible tests and explicit limits — not a larger promise.
Three areas instead of one grand claim about the future
The Three-Bucket AI Framework remains useful in this debate. Product: does a new capability change what we sell or the value customers receive? Production: does it change how we create our offering — through better drafts, shorter lead times or less rework? Organisation: does it change how we run the company, process information and prepare decisions?
Within each area, Replace, Augment and Create remain the working questions. What can the system take over, where does it support people, and what new offering becomes possible? These questions require observable results. They work whether the presentation says AI, KI or SI.
What decision-makers can do now
A testable application belongs in NOW when its value, risks and ownership are clear. A plausible opportunity with unresolved prerequisites belongs in NEXT. Claims about future capabilities belong in WATCH until there is defensible evidence. A relabelling exercise without business value can stay in IGNORE.
For a first test, I would specify one task, a comparison with today’s process, an accountable person and a stopping condition. Also: what data is used, who checks the result, and what happens when it is wrong? The technology’s name answers none of these questions.
My conclusion
Super Intelligence is a topic decision-makers should understand. It is not a substitute for business strategy. I will keep using AI and KI where they describe the work more clearly. What matters is not how ambitious the name sounds, but which change we can implement responsibly. This perspective reflects the information available on 6 October 2026.