steelman n. the strongest version of an argument you disagree with

The case for SI, fairly stated

We think AI is the clearer word. But the arguments for SI deserve a fair hearing, so here they are at their strongest.

Updated 3 November 2026

The arguments supporters make

"Artificial" undersells the technology. The White House's case is that today's systems do much more than imitate or automate pieces of human intelligence. The order says the terminology should reflect the technology's transformative capabilities. To supporters, "artificial" implies fake or second-rate, which no longer fits.

Names shape attitudes. If the public associates AI with something fake or threatening, a new name could reset the conversation around what the technology can do. Supporters see the rename as part of making the case for US leadership in the field.

Language changes all the time. "Information superhighway" faded; "the internet" stuck. Supporters argue there's no reason the 1950s label has to be permanent.

Practical consistency for government. One term across every agency is simpler than a mix, and the order applies it consistently while a legal definition is worked out.

The main objections

• Superintelligence already has a meaning. Researchers use it for systems that outperform people at almost everything. Today's tools don't, so the label can mislead. More on this.
• A name doesn't fix concerns. Reporting describes public worries about jobs, safety and data centres. Critics argue a rename doesn't address any of those.
• Two terms, one technology. Agencies now write SI while the law still says AI, which creates the very inconsistency supporters want to avoid, at least until Congress acts.
• Limited uptake. Outside the US executive branch and a few companies, most organisations are sticking with AI.

Where that leaves writers

You can agree with some of the case for SI and still write AI, because it's the word your readers understand. Our style guide sets out when each term fits.