Published on: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 17:38:12 GMT
Original Story: Trump Says He Will Ban Term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ In Latest Push For ‘Super Intelligence’ – Forbes

Trump Rebrands AI: Call It ‘Super Intelligence’!

Oh, joy. Another day, another dose of reality-bending from the man who perfected the art of simply declaring things to be so. Just when I thought my corporate-burnout-induced eye-rolling muscles couldn’t get any more exercise, Forbes drops the news: Donald Trump, in his infinite wisdom, is apparently ready to ban the term “Artificial Intelligence.” Why? Because he prefers the sound of “Super Intelligence.” Because, you know, words are just suggestions, and reality is merely a pliable concept waiting for a catchy new slogan.

Seriously, folks. My coffee hasn’t even kicked in properly, and we’re already discussing the linguistic policing of advanced computational systems. It’s like my Monday morning stand-up, but instead of arguing about JIRA tickets, we’re debating whether “AI” is sufficiently grandiose for the former (and potentially future) leader of the free world. Spoiler alert: it’s not. Apparently, “Artificial Intelligence” sounds too… artificial. Too weak. Too much like something mere mortals might dabble in. What we need, clearly, is “Super Intelligence.” Because that just sounds bigger, better, more American, doesn’t it?

The Lexicon of Leadership: When Words Just Aren’t Enough

Let’s unpack this linguistic gem for a moment. Donald Trump, according to the report, is pushing for a rebrand because “Super Intelligence” sounds more aspirational. More powerful. Less… well, less like something that might actually exist in its current, rapidly developing form. It’s like demanding we stop calling cars “automobiles” and start calling them “Hyper-Speed Personal Transporters” because it sounds cooler. Sure, it sounds cooler. It also sounds like something a six-year-old would invent while drawing robots.

The issue here, beyond the sheer, unadulterated absurdity, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what these terms actually mean. “Artificial Intelligence” is the umbrella term. It encompasses everything from the annoying chatbot trying to help you reset your password to the sophisticated algorithms powering self-driving cars. Within AI, you have various sub-fields, and one of the *hypothetical* future states of AI is “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI), and beyond that, “Artificial Super Intelligence” (ASI) – which is what “Super Intelligence” usually refers to. ASI is a theoretical point where AI surpasses human intelligence across virtually all cognitive tasks. We are nowhere near that, folks. Not even close. We’re still trying to get AI to reliably tell the difference between a cat and a dog without a million training images.

From “Hoax” to “Super”: A Pattern of Reality Remodeling

This isn’t just about a preference for snazzier branding. This is a classic Trumpian move: reject established terminology, dismiss expert consensus, and reframe reality to fit a more appealing, often simpler, narrative. It’s a hallmark of his approach to, well, almost everything.

Remember early 2020? The initial days of the COVID-19 pandemic? While public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci were meticulously explaining viral transmission, incubation periods, and the efficacy of masks using precise scientific language, Trump was busy suggesting we inject disinfectant, calling the virus a “hoax” (or at least downplaying its severity), and promoting unproven treatments as “miracles.” He wasn’t just contradicting experts; he was actively attempting to redefine the scientific and medical lexicon for public consumption. The reality described by epidemiologists and virologists was deemed too complex, too inconvenient. He effectively tried to “ban” the terms of established science in favor of his own, easily digestible (and often dangerous) narratives. This latest AI pivot feels like a direct descendant of that same playbook – a linguistic sleight of hand designed to control the narrative, not to engage with the actual technological reality.

The Practicalities of Pronouncement: What Does “Ban” Even Mean?

Let’s pause for a moment and consider the practical implications of “banning” a widely accepted, globally used technical term. Does he plan to issue an executive order to scrub “AI” from all government documents? Will Silicon Valley be subjected to fines if they dare utter the forbidden acronym? Will our smart assistants suddenly refuse to respond if we call them “AI” instead of “Super Intelligence”?

It’s ludicrous, of course. The global scientific and tech community isn’t going to suddenly pivot their entire vocabulary because one politician thinks “Super Intelligence” sounds more impressive. It would be like a country declaring that from now on, “gravity” shall be known as “Earth-Pull Phenomenon” and expecting physicists worldwide to just shrug and update their textbooks. It simply doesn’t work that way. The language of science and technology is built on a foundation of shared understanding and precise definitions, not on marketing appeal.

This isn’t about fostering innovation; it’s about rhetorical control. It’s about planting a flag in a burgeoning field with a term that implies ultimate dominance, regardless of whether that term accurately reflects the current state or even the near-future goals. It’s a classic move: if you can control the language, you can control the perception, and if you control the perception, you can bend reality just enough to suit your political agenda. Who cares if the engineers are still wrestling with basic machine learning models when you can promise “Super Intelligence”?

Why This Matters (Beyond My Cynicism)

While my elder millennial burnout persona finds endless material in this kind of performative absurdity, there’s a serious undertone. When leaders deliberately muddy the waters of established terminology, particularly in critical and rapidly evolving fields like AI, it has consequences. It sows confusion, erodes public trust in expert knowledge, and can hinder effective policy-making. If we can’t even agree on what to call the technology, how can we hope to regulate it responsibly, invest in it wisely, or educate the public about its profound societal implications?

This isn’t just a quirky preference for a snazzier term. It’s another example of a consistent pattern of elevating subjective preference over objective fact, branding over substance, and rhetorical flourish over genuine understanding. And for those of us who’ve been slogging through the corporate trenches, watching the endless parade of buzzwords and “disruptive innovations,” it’s just another reminder that some things, like the relentless pursuit of a reality-optional narrative, are truly super… super exhausting.