Ethan Carter
The White House has introduced a new term for artificial intelligence, now referred to as “Super Intelligence,” along with a forward-looking commitment to its development.
On September 29, 2026, President Donald Trump, alongside executives from several prominent American tech firms, endorsed a voluntary agreement called the White House Accord on Super Intelligence. This agreement was finalized during a “Super Intelligence Luncheon” held in the East Room of the White House, featuring key figures from the tech and AI sectors.
Notable attendees included Elon Musk (xAI), Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Sundar Pichai (Google), Greg Brockman (OpenAI), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Lisa Su (AMD), and Alex Karp (Palantir). Interestingly, Apple was not represented at this high-profile event.
Despite Tim Cook, the then-CEO of Apple, being a frequent attendee at Trump’s technology summits, including a recent state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping, no representative from Apple was present at the luncheon. Both Nadella and Bezos attended the event, but neither Microsoft nor Amazon joined the accord.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Trump emphasized that the signed document is “morally binding” for the executives involved. The signatories include Amodei, Brockman, Huang, Musk, Pichai, and Zuckerberg.
On the same day, Trump issued an executive order mandating the federal government to replace the term “AI” with “Super Intelligence” in official communications and urged Congress to formalize this new terminology into law.
This rebranding followed two social media polls conducted by Trump. On September 19, he shared a poll on X and Truth Social, asking followers to select their preferred term from “Superior Intelligence,” “Extreme Intelligence,” and “Supreme Intelligence.” “Superior Intelligence” garnered 41.5 percent of the votes on X, from over 230,000 participants. A subsequent poll on Truth Social pitted “super intelligence” against “superior intelligence,” with more than 50,000 responses and 65 percent favoring “super intelligence.”
The accord itself contains a typographical error, incorrectly stating “President of the Unites States.”
Mashable Light Speed
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
What Exactly Is Artificial Intelligence?
The rebranding to “Super Intelligence” highlights the ongoing confusion surrounding the concept of AI. “Artificial intelligence” serves as an umbrella term encompassing various technologies, many of which are neither new nor particularly remarkable. Common applications include spam filters, recommendation algorithms that personalize your social media feeds, and fraud detection systems employed by banks. Even the autocorrect feature on your smartphone relies on forms of machine learning that recognize patterns in vast datasets to make accurate predictions.
For the general public, “AI” often refers specifically to generative AI technologies. These include chatbots and image generators like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok. While chatbots themselves are not a new phenomenon—simple versions have been around since the 1960s—the technology has significantly advanced over the years. As AI companies strive to recover substantial investments, they have promoted these tools as consumer-friendly products, often advertising them as shortcuts for creative tasks such as art creation or book writing. This marketing approach has contributed to the growing backlash against generative AI.
The introduction of “Super Intelligence” may further complicate public understanding. In the field of AI research, philosopher Nick Bostrom has defined superintelligence as advanced systems that exceed human cognitive abilities, distinctly different from the chatbots and spam filters we currently use. Marketing professor Jean-Pierre Dubé from the University of Chicago expressed to Newsweek that the adoption of this term appears to be “premature” and cautioned that such brand confusion could hinder its acceptance.
What Are the Key Provisions of the Accord?
The accord is subtitled “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities,” emphasizing that all companies engaged in developing advanced AI models must prioritize safety in their innovations. It calls on each signatory to establish four layers of oversight: internal monitoring, dedicated development teams to maintain these controls, independent audits, and oversight committees within each company’s board of directors.
The companies committed to convening regularly to establish shared standards and best practices. This approach might sound familiar because Amodei previously proposed similar ideas just weeks ago.
In a September 12 essay, Amodei urged the AI sector to “pace the frontier.” His three-part strategy included granting external evaluators permanent, employee-level access to verify safety measures at Anthropic. The second step involved coordinating safety standards among AI firms in democratic nations. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman swiftly endorsed this initiative, committing OpenAI to the same evaluator access.
With the signing of the accords, Amodei’s vision for the future of AI has garnered the support of the Trump administration. In his essay, he suggested that the government should facilitate discussions on standard-setting among AI companies and provide a “narrow waiver” to allow these safety conversations to proceed without infringing upon antitrust laws, as reported by Mashable’s Rebecca Ruiz. The White House-hosted agreement, which encourages competitors to meet regularly, closely resembles this facilitation effort. It coincides with an ongoing class-action lawsuit alleging that a coordinated slowdown among Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and SpaceXAI violates antitrust regulations.
As it stands, the White House Accord on Super Intelligence is fundamentally a commitment. The agreement relies heavily on self-regulation and board oversight.
There is no enforcement mechanism, no penalties, no established timeline, no obligation to disclose audit outcomes, and no clear criteria for what constitutes an “independent” evaluator. The document suggests that it “may make sense” to eventually codify these measures into law or regulations.
In the interim, the participating companies assert their commitment to adhere to these guidelines. “Industry also has to innovate responsibly,” Pichai stated on X.
Daniel Mercer
