SI instead of AI: what Washington’s nameplate changes for business (and what it does not)
Washington’s new nameplate does not invent a new technology. In late September 2026 the U.S. executive branch began saying Super Intelligence (SI) instead of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in official communications — while the legal definition still points to the same machine-based systems already covered by 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3). For most businesses the stack, risks, and contracts stay AI until you deliberately change them.
Author: ALEX PAT · axi.so · Trondheim · LinkedIn
What happened in September 2026
On 22 September 2026, at the UN General Assembly, the U.S. president publicly pushed a rename: stop saying “artificial intelligence”, start saying “super intelligence” / SI (coverage via UN News).
On 29 September 2026, Executive Order 14434 (“Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence”) told executive departments and agencies — to the maximum extent permitted by law — to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” instead of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory executive-branch documents. A White House fact sheet summarises the same direction.
Citeable takeaway: In EO 14434, SI means the technologies already defined as AI under 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), unless a later law or presidential action changes that. The order also says prior regulations, contracts, grants, and historical documents do not have to be rewritten because of the new wording.
So the “Washington nameplate” is a terminology policy for the executive branch, not a silent rewrite of every private contract on Earth.
SI is not ASI — do not mix the labels
Two acronyms collide in headlines. Keep them apart.
| Label | What it usually means in this debate | Source type |
|---|---|---|
| AI | Machine-based systems that predict, recommend, or decide under human-defined objectives | Statute: 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3) |
| SI (EO 14434) | Executive-branch wording for those same AI technologies | Presidential EO / fact sheet |
| ASI | Speculative “artificial superintelligence” far beyond ordinary business AI — separate legislative fight | e.g. Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act materials |
If a vendor says “we are SI now, so the rules changed”, ask: which SI — White House nameplate, or ASI legislation? For ordinary CRM drafts, chat assistants, OCR, and workflow bots, you are still in the AI product category until a contract or statute says otherwise.
What actually changes for business and public-adjacent work
Often changes
- How U.S. federal agencies phrase press pages, briefings, and non-statutory guidance.
- Glossary noise in partner meetings: one side says SI, your RFP still says AI.
- Media and LinkedIn language — people will paste “SI” because Washington did.
Usually does not change (yet)
- Your existing SLAs, DPAs, and RFPs that say “AI”.
- Model cards, risk registers, and human-review gates you already run.
- EU / Norway wording: the EU AI Act and Norwegian practice still speak in AI terms. A Trondheim company does not need a panic rename of every internal system because Washington updated a nameplate.
Same tech, two nameplates — until a statute, a court, or your contract actually moves the definition.
Practical checklist (keep this short)
- Glossary sync — one page: “Partner says SI = our AI systems under current contracts.”
- RFP / tender text — if the buyer still writes AI, answer in AI; add a footnote that SI in U.S. executive communications maps to the same scope under § 9401(3) for now.
- Do not rename production systems for hype — change product names only when legal, brand, and support teams agree.
- Separate ASI talk — board “ASI risk” discussions are not the same as “agency now says SI on the website”.
- Keep human review — wording does not replace approval gates, logging, or data rules (Datatilsynet guidance still applies in Norway).
How we talk about this at axi.so
We keep saying AI when we mean tools and workflows for business — because that is what clients, Nordic buyers, and the EU Act still use. We explain SI when a partner or U.S. public document uses the new nameplate, so nobody thinks a new species of software arrived overnight.
If you want a calm read of your glossary, RFP language, or first automation case — see about, services, or contact. Updates also on LinkedIn.
Related: SI is not just a nameplate — my take · useful across business stages · AI digitization in Trøndelag · the Norwegian AI test · public-adjacent AI path.
FAQ
Does “SI instead of AI” mean companies must rename all products?
No. EO 14434 targets executive-branch non-statutory wording. It explicitly does not require rewriting prior contracts, grants, or historical documents.
Is SI the same as ASI?
No. In EO 14434, SI maps to the existing statutory AI definition in 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3). ASI debates about “artificial superintelligence” are a different legal track.
Should a Norwegian company switch every document to SI?
Not by default. Keep AI where EU / Nordic buyers and the AI Act expect it. Add a glossary note when a U.S. partner uses SI.
What should we do in the next RFP?
Answer the buyer’s terms. If they say AI, use AI. If they say SI, ask which definition they mean and map it to your current systems and controls.
Where can I read the primary sources?
Start with the White House EO page, the fact sheet, and 15 U.S.C. § 9401.