3. A Clear Name Helps Buyers and Builders
The order itself makes the case plainly. Executive Order 14434, Section 1, states:
“The extraordinary technologies being pioneered by American innovators far exceed what was envisioned when the term “Artificial Intelligence” first came into use… As these capabilities continue to improve, they increasingly represent not merely artificial intelligence, but a new era of Super Intelligence.”
— Executive Order 14434, Sec. 1
Section 2(a) makes it operative: “To the maximum extent permitted by law, executive departments
and 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”
(Source: EO 14434, Sec. 2(a), Federal Register 91 FR 63129).
One federal government, one term, across every agency — that consistency is itself valuable to
anyone who buys or builds this technology.
The market is already moving with it. Salesforce confirmed a rename on October 9, 2026, with CEO Marc
Benioff writing on X: “The era of Super Intelligence is here. AIForce is officially
SIForce”
(Source: Marc Benioff via Digg, October 9, 2026).
Five days earlier, Elon Musk pledged the same move at SpaceX, replying “Yes, we will make that
change” when asked whether SpaceXAI would become SpaceXSI, and adding, “SpaceX is a super
intelligence company.”
(Source: Reuters via The Star, October 5, 2026)
As of October 11, 2026, Musk’s pledge had not yet been carried out
(Source: CNN, Zachary B. Wolf, October 11, 2026).
On the same day the order was signed, six technology leaders — Sundar Pichai, Dario Amodei, Mark
Zuckerberg, Greg Brockman, Jensen Huang, and Elon Musk — signed the White House Accord on Super
Intelligence, a voluntary safety commitment, not a rename, that shows how seriously the industry’s
own leadership now takes the capability the name describes
(Source: MercoPress, September 30, 2026).
Iternal is choosing to lead alongside the federal government and these early movers, not to wait and
see where the term lands.
4. The Objections, Answered
Most people still say “AI.” YouGov surveyed 21,449 U.S. adults on
September 28, 2026: 53% said “artificial intelligence” is the better name, 9% said
“super intelligence,” 23% had no preference, and 15% were not sure
(Source: YouGov, September 28, 2026).
“Artificial intelligence” at 53% is a real majority, not a rounding error — and 47%
did not choose it. That gap is exactly why Iternal writes “Super Intelligence (SI), formerly
called artificial intelligence (AI)” on first mention: it is the reason to build a bridge while
leading, not a reason to wait.
“It isn’t superintelligence yet” answers a different question than the one
the order asks. Philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence (ASI) as “any
intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of
interest”
(Source: Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, 2014, via Wikipedia).
Bostrom has said “it’s a little bit of a stretch, maybe, to call my spam filter a
superintelligence” — while also saying “it’s not up to me to decide how English
language should be used”
(Source: CNN, Zachary B. Wolf, October 11, 2026).
He is right that his bar is higher than what exists today — and the order never claims otherwise.
Executive Order 14434, Section 3(a), defines “Super Intelligence” and “SI” as
“the technologies and systems encompassed by the term ‘artificial intelligence’ as
defined in section 9401(3) of title 15, United States Code”
(Source: EO 14434, Sec. 3(a)) —
the existing, capability-based statutory definition
(Source: 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), Cornell LII),
not Bostrom’s theoretical threshold. SI as named today is the capability already in production
use. ASI is Bostrom’s higher, hypothetical bar. That distinction answers the objection.
California has directed its own agencies to keep using “AI.” Executive
Order N-10-26, signed by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2026, states: “All agencies and
departments subject to my authority shall refer to Artificial Intelligence and AI as ‘Artificial
Intelligence’ and ‘AI,’ notwithstanding any rebranded or different terminology used
by the federal government, unless inconsistent with the law”
(Source: California EO N-10-26, signed PDF).
That is California’s own choice for its own agencies. It does not change the measured evidence
above, which is why Iternal makes its case on the merits.
Congress is considering a bill aimed at a different, higher bar. The Ban Artificial
Superintelligence Act of 2026 (H.R. 10538), introduced in the House by Rep. Greg Casar, with Sen.
Bernie Sanders leading the Senate effort, defines “Artificial Superintelligence” as a
system that “exhibits or can easily be modified to exhibit capabilities that match or exceed
human cognitive performance… across a broad range of domains,” or one with
“sufficient capabilities to plan and execute the disempowerment of humanity”
(Source: Sponsors' release summary, sanders.senate.gov).
The bill writes its own definition for a category of system it would prohibit. EO 14434 Section 3(a)
does a different job: it renames the existing statutory AI definition. The two texts define different
things for different purposes.
OpenAI has said it has no plans to rename itself. On POLITICO’s “Decoded”
podcast (aired October 5, 2026), OpenAI signaled no plans to change its name to OpenSI
(Source: CNN, Zachary B. Wolf, October 11, 2026).
In the same interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the podcast that “super intelligence” may be a better term
than “artificial intelligence,” though it “still sort of understates the magnitude of
what I think is happening,” and he questioned whether it sounds “obviously less scary”
than artificial intelligence. That is an argument that the new name says too little, not that the old
one says more: if “Super Intelligence” understates the capability, “artificial”
understates it further. A company’s choice about its own name does not change what the
technology measurably does, and that measured record is the ground Iternal argues on.
None of this is a private legal requirement, and Iternal is not treating it as one.
Executive Order 14434 binds federal agencies: Section 2(b) states that nothing in the order
“requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts,
grants, or other historical documents,” and Section 4(c) states the order creates no right or
benefit “enforceable at law or in equity by any party”
(Source: EO 14434, Secs. 2(b) and 4(c)).
Iternal is adopting “Super Intelligence” because the argument above holds up, not because
any law requires it of a private company. Leadership, not compliance, is the point.
For more information visit the Super Intelligence hub.
