Here’s What’s Going on With Government’s ‘Super Intelligence’ Term

Federal agencies are beginning to swap references to artificial intelligence with “super intelligence,” or SI, as they implement a White House directive calling for the change.

The Sept. 29 executive order directs executive branch departments and agencies to use “super intelligence” and “SI” in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports and policy documents, replacing the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI”.

President Trump had floated the idea as far back as July 23, 2025, at a Washington, D.C. AI event. “We should change the name. I actually mean that. I don’t like the name artificial anything because it’s not artificial. It’s genius. It’s pure genius,” he said at the time.

The transition already appears across federal websites and agency communications. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, for example, posted guidance explaining that it is updating its communications to reflect the new terminology, while the National Institutes of Health said it has begun updating its websites, communications and materials.

The directive has raised questions beyond a change in vocabulary: How will agencies update their existing AI programs? What happens to established terminology in contracts, regulations and technical standards? What should technology companies and federal contractors know as they continue working with agencies on AI-related initiatives?

For now, the current order does not change the underlying statutory definition of AI or require changing existing contracts. Instead, it applies the new SI terminology to the technologies already covered by that definition. Plus, it directs the White House science and technology adviser to develop proposed legislative language for a federal definition of SI within 60 days — or Nov. 28.

Federal Agency Compliance

Officials at NIST and the Energy Department told GovCIO Media & Research that they have already shifted to using SI in all their internal messaging and public communication.

In regard to the War Department’s use of advanced technology “moonshot” programs, Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffy mentioned SI as one of the key drivers for empowering warfighters.

“I think it is essential in technology that we’re witnessing right now, and the ability to apply superintelligence to refine that into useful, actionable information is really exciting,” he said at Google’s Public Sector Summit in October.

Another change in government agencies likely forthcoming will be the chief AI officer titles themselves. Unlike CIOs, chief AI officers are not statutory requirements and instead are directed by policies from OMB. Some agencies, like the departments of the Treasury, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and State, have changed the titles of their CAIO to chief SI officer (CSIO).

DOW has not yet changed any of their job titles, though it has begun using the SI terminology, as demonstrated via Duffy’s recent comments.

What Industry is Saying

Many industry vendors who work with the government have begun referring to both SI and AI interchangeably.

Others embracing the term include SpaceX, Tesla, Meta and Salesforce, which renamed its agent platform from AIForce to SIForce in October.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk noted that he renamed SpaceX’s AI division to SpaceXSI.

Meta had begun using the term before Trump’s executive order with its strategic vision for bringing “personal superintelligence to everyone.”

“We hit major milestones this quarter toward delivering personal superintelligence for everyone — including launching Muse and Muse Wonder, our first frontier model,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on an Oct. 21 call.

Other tech companies like Alphabet, Microsoft and IBM have used both terms in recent public comments.

A perspective from author Soren Kaplan in Inc. Magazine suggests using descriptive terms for artificial intelligence tools like chatbots or agents, and using super intelligence when referring to long-term business strategy.

While rapid changes are occurring in how AI and SI are named, experts noted they do not necessarily reflect actual structural change.

“I am not aware of it having any purpose other than rebranding. And aside from agencies required to use it and companies that want to stay in the administration’s good graces, I don’t see anyone actually adopting it,” Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at George Washington University, told GovCIO Media & Research.

However, companies doing business with the government should recognize the change and adjust the use of the terms within their documents accordingly, noted a legal analysis by Arnold & Porter.

“Because the EO says the Executive Branch will not acknowledge the old terms, companies should carefully assess the language they use in proposals, filings, and responses to agency requests. When citing existing statutes, regulations, contracts, or grants, companies may still want to use the terms reflected in those documents,” the report said.