President Donald Trump issued an executive order that formally replaces the term artificial intelligence with “super intelligence,” a change announced during a high-profile gathering of industry leaders. As TechCrunch’s Anthony Ha reported, the order requires all U.S. officials to use the new label when referring to the technology. The move was presented as part of a broader effort to address safety concerns while reshaping public perception of advanced machine systems.
The same event introduced a voluntary safety pact signed by CEOs of the nation’s largest tech firms. The agreement, drafted in a matter of days, contains a typographical error in the country’s name and lacks enforceable provisions. As Sean O’Kane noted for TechCrunch, President Trump described the pact as “morally binding,” a phrase that critics argue adds no legal weight to the largely symbolic document.
Attendees included Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei, who arrived after a late-night dinner with the president. The gathering was framed as a bipartisan effort to align industry practices with governmental expectations. Observers highlighted the unusual sight of competing CEOs sharing a single stage, a scene that quickly generated a flood of internet memes and commentary about the optics of the meeting.
Within the administration, opinions on Anthropic remain split. The Treasury Secretary reportedly expressed enthusiasm for the company’s technology, while the Defense Department continues to label Anthropic as a national-security risk and a “woke” organization. Public statements from Defense officials have repeatedly criticized the firm, contrasting sharply with the more supportive tone from other White House offices. This internal discord suggests that the pact does not resolve underlying inter-agency tensions.
Kirsten Korosec of TechCrunch interpreted the rebranding as a deliberate attempt to soften public fears. She argued that the shift from “AI is going to kill us” to “super intelligence is harmless” aims to recast the technology as a benign force. The messaging, she said, was not a personal belief but a strategic narrative intended to improve the sector’s image amid growing regulatory scrutiny.
Analysts remain doubtful that the agreement will produce concrete policy changes. Sean O’Kane emphasized that the document’s voluntary nature and the misspelling of the United States indicate a rushed effort with limited substance. He added that the notion of a “morally binding” pledge lacks precedent in U.S. law, reinforcing the view that the pact serves more as a public relations gesture than a regulatory framework.