Is there more context anyone can give to help understand what’s going on: I read the post but curious if AGI is just morphing into SI in lingo? Why is it being politicized?
> The terminology used by the Federal Government should reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people. Accordingly, the term “Super Intelligence” more appropriately captures the promise, potential, and rapidly advancing capabilities of these technologies. It is therefore the policy of my Administration that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the executive branch shall use the terms “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in place of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” and will not acknowledge the usage of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in any applicable setting.
Why, I don't know. The OP's "purity test" theory is a possibility.
The initial choices were: "Supreme Intelligence", "Superior Intelligence", "Extreme Intelligence". [0]
Then he removed "Supreme Intelligence" because he said it reminded people of the failing Supreme Court, and it was down to just "Superior" or "Extreme". [1]
Then, presumably after some industry people talked him into a compromise, he decided it was actually between "Superior" or "Super Intelligence", and the latter won. [2]
[0] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2101350559328416142
[1] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2101698074166882517
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/29/trump-signs-executi...
[2] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1174061766043...
The US (without the imagined AI valuations) is in a full blown recession. The US treasury/administration is leveraging belief/investment in AI to keep the numbers up (oversimplified, but not by much). This means the administration has a vested interest in keeping AI churning and investment growing with no fallback except maybe the chaos of trying to start off a wartime economy? Because there are few recognizable AI players and the administration is not above extortion (choosing winners), they are leveraging the DOJ regulatory powers (witholding introducing barriers) to push a new grift. The situation is not strictly political, as much as it's a form of corruption.
Seems remarkably hopeful within a lose lose culture.
Negative incentives seem more likely: punishment for disloyalty.
The loyal just get rugpulled.