Hajra Naz
President Donald Trump hosted many of the biggest names in artificial intelligence this week. The gathering served a specific purpose. The administration announced a shift in terminology. The U.S. government is no longer calling it artificial intelligence. Instead, it’s now referred to as superintelligence.
On the latest episode of a tech podcast, hosts discussed the motivation behind this meeting. They also examined what effect it might have on the broader AI industry. There was widespread skepticism among the hosts. Many doubted whether the “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities” would amount to much in practice. One host noted that the agreement is “deeply non-binding,” at least from a legal standpoint. Trump, for his part, said he considers it “morally binding” instead.
One host suggested the meeting’s real significance centered on something else. It may have functioned primarily as “a rebranding effort around AI.” That effort continued over the following weekend. Trump announced a new Super Intelligence Force shortly after. According to this host, the underlying message was clear. “AI is going to kill us; it’s scary; it is going to take jobs — but super intelligence is not.”
Read more: California’s New Law Bars AI From Firing Workers Without Human Review
Below is a preview of this conversation, edited for length and clarity.
On the rebranding itself:
Officially, by order of the president of the United States, the terminology has changed. It’s no longer artificial intelligence. Now it’s super intelligence. This shift had been hinted at for some time. Trump had been signaling this change repeatedly in recent weeks. Now, it’s been signed into an executive order. Official U.S. representatives are expected to use the term “super intelligence” going forward, not “artificial intelligence.”
This announcement arrived alongside a broader AI safety initiative too. That combination seems notable for two reasons. First, there’s the pact itself. Second, there’s the fact that this gathering happened at all. The timing felt fairly sudden. Just a week or two earlier, Trump had taken a very different public stance.
He had argued that no regulation was needed. He insisted the U.S. needed to lead in AI without constraints. He even suggested that anyone warning about AI dangers was essentially acting as a Chinese or Democratic plant. Despite that rhetoric, several major AI CEOs gathered with him just days later to sign this new pact.
On the shifting relationship with Anthropic:
Leading up to this meeting, there had been clear pushback against regulation. Whether this executive order actually accomplishes meaningful regulation remains questionable. Much of it reads as theater rather than substance. Still, something genuinely interesting happened behind the scenes. Just days before this event, Anthropic appeared to be out of favor with the administration.
That dynamic shifted quickly. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei received an invitation to a late-night dinner. That sit-down meeting happened first. Then, just days later, this larger luncheon took place. Nearly every major tech power broker attended. That included Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Amodei himself.
The press conference that followed drew significant attention online. Many found it genuinely amusing, generating numerous memes. Bringing together a large group of tech CEOs in one setting tends to produce unusual dynamics.
The bigger question remains open, though. What does any of this actually mean? Does it carry real significance at all?
Read More: White House Signs a Voluntary AI Pledge and Renames AI “Super Intelligence”
On skepticism toward the agreement:
There’s a lot to unpack here. Trump and Amodei did have dinner together, that much is confirmed. Still, based on a recent Time magazine interview with Trump, it’s unclear how informed he actually was about that dinner beforehand. That’s an odd reality, but it appears to be the one currently in play.
There’s another reason for skepticism about how repaired this relationship truly is. Despite visible efforts to bring these two sides together, the Defense Department maintains a very different position. Officials there continue describing Anthropic in sharply critical terms. Some officials frequently criticize the company publicly online. This suggests real distance remains, despite Amodei’s appearance at this event.
As for the agreement itself, a notable detail stood out. The signed document actually misspelled “United States.” The agreement is also deeply non-binding. It’s entirely voluntary in nature. Trump’s description of it as “morally binding” introduced a level of abstraction rarely heard in formal policy language.
On the complicated relationship between Anthropic and the administration:
Reporting has long suggested that different parts of the White House hold different views on Anthropic. The Treasury Secretary reportedly viewed the company favorably. The Defense Department held a much less favorable view. That department expressed real frustration with conditions Anthropic tried to place on its technology’s use.
In that sense, nothing fundamental appears to have changed. Some officials within the administration want to work closely with Anthropic. Others remain firmly opposed to that kind of involvement.
Regarding the agreement’s substance, it doesn’t appear especially meaningful on its own. What does seem meaningful is the fact that this gesture was deemed necessary at all. The misspelling of “United States” suggests the document was assembled quickly. Still, the need for this kind of public gesture carries its own significance. That holds even if the agreement itself doesn’t produce major substantive change.
Read More: Google Takes Brussels to Court Over Search Data and Android Access
On the real purpose behind the meeting:
One important development did emerge from all of this. The event functioned largely as a rebranding exercise around AI itself. The underlying message became clear: artificial intelligence sounds dangerous, scary, and threatening to jobs. Super intelligence, by contrast, is framed as something entirely different. That framing—not necessarily a personal endorsement of it—appeared to be the central point of the entire gathering.
