President Donald Trump has hosted many of the biggest names in artificial intelligence this week, using the high-profile gathering in part to announce a sweeping semantic shift: the U.S. government is no longer calling the technology artificial intelligence. Moving forward, official policy dictates that it is known as "super intelligence."
The administration’s sudden linguistic pivot and the subsequent industry summit served as the primary topic of discussion on the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, where journalists Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and Anthony Ha sat down to break down the motivations behind the meeting and evaluate what long-term effects it might have on the broader technology landscape. The panel expressed widespread skepticism regarding whether the "Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities"—a pledge signed by the attending tech executives—would amount to any substantial policy shifts. As O’Kane pointed out during the discussion, the document is "deeply non-binding" from a strict legal perspective, though Trump reportedly remarked that he considers the agreement "morally binding."
Korosec suggested during the podcast that the true significance of the summit extended far beyond policy, functioning instead as a massive "rebranding effort around AI." This messaging campaign appeared to continue shortly after the meeting with Trump’s announcement of a new Super Intelligence Force. According to Korosec, the underlying narrative pushed by the administration is that while conventional artificial intelligence is frequently framed as dangerous, job-stealing, and existential, "super intelligence" is painted in an entirely different light.
During the podcast conversation, the hosts detailed the surprising sequence of events leading up to the executive order and the high-stakes luncheon. Anthony Ha highlighted the official nature of the change, noting that by order of the president of the United States, federal representatives are now expected to use the term "super intelligence" instead of artificial intelligence. Ha observed that while Trump had been hinting at the terminology shift for some time, it has now been formalized into an executive order.
The policy announcement accompanied a sudden about-face on AI safety and regulation from the White House. Just weeks prior, President Trump had publicly dismissed the need for federal oversight, arguing that the United States needed to lead aggressively in the tech sector without constraints, and characterizing warnings about AI dangers as talking points originating from foreign or political rivals. Yet, despite that staunch anti-regulation stance, a cadre of prominent AI CEOs converged to sign the administration’s new pact.
Kirsten Korosec added critical context regarding the tense political atmosphere leading up to the summit, noting that Anthropic had recently found itself in an unfavorable position within the administration. The dynamic shifted dramatically when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei was unexpectedly invited to a late-night dinner with President Trump at 10 p.m. Just days following that sit-down, the administration hosted a major luncheon attended by an unprecedented lineup of tech power brokers. Industry titans including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla and xAI leader Elon Musk, and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei were all present at the gathering.
The post-summit press conference quickly became a viral fixture across social media platforms, spawning numerous memes driven by the awkward interactions typical of a room filled with competing tech moguls. However, behind the viral moments, the podcast panel grappled with a fundamental question: What does this sudden alignment actually mean for the industry?
Sean O’Kane expressed deep skepticism regarding the true health of the relationship between the administration and Anthropic. Despite Amodei’s presence at the high-profile dinner and subsequent luncheon, O’Kane noted that parts of the federal government—most notably the Department of Defense—remain openly hostile toward the company, frequently labeling Anthropic as "woke" and a national security risk. O’Kane pointed out that administration figures like Emil Michael have continued to publicly criticize Anthropic on social media platforms, indicating that significant ideological distance remains between the two entities.
Furthermore, the mechanics of the agreement itself raised immediate red flags among observers. O’Kane highlighted the fact that the official document signed by the tech leaders and the president notably misspelled the United States. Beyond the typo, the agreement’s entirely voluntary and non-binding nature led O’Kane to single out Trump’s description of the pact as "morally binding" as a bizarre level of political abstraction.
Anthony Ha expanded on the internal friction within the executive branch regarding Anthropic, noting that different departments have maintained sharply contrasting relationships with the company throughout the administration. While the Treasury Department has historically shown warmth toward Anthropic, the Defense Department has remained bitterly opposed, largely due to policy conditions and safety guardrails Anthropic sought to place on the military deployment of its technology. In that light, the podcast hosts agreed that the fundamental divisions within the White House have not truly evaporated; certain factions are eager to leverage Anthropic’s capabilities and involve the firm in national strategy, while others remain fundamentally opposed.
Regarding the newly signed agreement, the panel concluded that its legal or regulatory substance is minimal. Instead, the true takeaway lies in the administration’s desire to stage the event in the first place. The rushed nature of the summit—underscored by administrative errors like the spelling mistake on the pledge—suggests that the white-glove treatment was cobbled together rapidly. Yet, the fact that the White House felt compelled to stage such a massive gesture is viewed as politically significant, even if the resulting text of the agreement fails to mandate any enforceable changes.
Reiterating her primary thesis, Kirsten Korosec emphasized that the overarching achievement of the summit was psychological and rhetorical rather than legislative. By shifting the vernacular from artificial intelligence to super intelligence, the administration has laid the groundwork for a broader narrative framing. In Korosec’s view, the subtext of the government’s new branding campaign is clear: conventional AI is portrayed as a scary, job-killing existential threat, while the newly christened super intelligence is framed as something entirely different, manageable, and aligned with national ambition.
