Intelligence(s) rebranded

Should tech labels depend on consensus or decree?

On 29 September 2026 Donald Trump issued an executive order directing US federal agencies to use Super Intelligence in place of Artificial Intelligence, defining the new term to cover the same technologies as the old one and calling those who refused to comply “THE ENEMY”. Since its first use in this context in 1955 the more familiar term has been in and out of fashion, surviving two ‘AI winters’ when both concept and name were out of favour among specialists. Its power today derives from its endorsement by all the major stakeholders: tech bros, broligarchs, government, commerce and media, hence also the general public. The English term has been translated directly into other major languages. I spoke to tech journalist Chris Stokel-Walker about the issues surrounding the attempted rebranding.

Chris’s article for Fast Company is here…

https://www.fastcompany.com/91621442/its-not-ai-and-its-not-superintelligence-so-what-is-it

Before the article appeared, I had asked AI engines Chat GPT and Google Gemini which of the two terms they preferred. These were their responses in their own words…

“I would choose AI, rather than SI, but the distinction is more interesting than it might at first appear. There are really two questions here: which term is more useful, and what assumptions each term encourages us to make about the technology. ‘AI’ or Artificial Intelligence is the established, relatively neutral term. It describes a broad field of technologies, from relatively simple pattern-recognition systems to sophisticated language models such as myself. It makes no necessary claim that a system is conscious, wise, autonomous or superior to human beings. ‘SI’ – Superintelligence – is a much stronger term. It suggests intelligence that surpasses human capabilities, perhaps across most or all intellectual domains. It is not simply another name for AI; it describes a hypothetical or prospective level of capability. Using it can therefore make a prediction about the future sound like a description of an existing reality.”

“If you are looking at the natural stepping stones of computer science, the missing link between today’s regular AI and actual Super Intelligence (SI / ASI) is AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). AI: Narrow systems designed for specific tasks (like ChatGPT or AlphaFold). AGI: A hypothetical machine that possesses human-level reasoning, learning, and adaptability across any domain while SI here implies an intellect that drastically surpasses human capabilities in every cognitive field. An alternative might be Synthetic Intelligence (SI). Interestingly, before “SI” was adopted by the U.S. government to mean “Super Intelligence”, the abbreviation SI already stood for Synthetic Intelligence in tech circles. If you want a third term that avoids the baggage of “artificiality,” you can look at Cognitive Computing: Systems that mimic the human brain’s thought processes using pattern recognition and natural language processing. This can subsume Embodied Cognition / Embodied AI: AI that interacts physically with the real world through sensors and robotics to learn like a human child, rather than just reading data on a screen.  If you are looking at the broader philosophical “pillars of intelligence,” the ultimate third alternative is NI (Natural / Biological Intelligence). This represents human and animal cognition—the benchmark that AI attempts to mimic and SI aims to surpass.”

X-COMMUNICATION

…OR X-TERMINATION?

Twitter – a space I value greatly and make use of to keep abreast of cultural, social, political controversies, to exchange facetious remarks and gossip, and, above all, to keep in touch with linguists, writers, influencers, anonymous wits across the virtual globe, has of course been a-buzz with the news that its owner, would-be tech-bro, multi-billionaire Elon Musk, has rebranded the platform as ‘X’.

In ‘linguistic’ terms the X sign is already overburdened with signification – in other words it has an ‘excess’ of potential meanings, so is a very odd choice for a brand in that many of those meanings have negative connotations or connotations of absence, erasure, taboo, cancellation, prohibition, etc, etc. Among the only well-known positive ones are kisses, the marking of the spot on a treasure map and the Christian chi-ro symbol ( ⳩).

Although it can evoke mystery or anonymity, the many meanings of ‘X’ veer strongly towards the antipathetic: the cancellation mark, X-rated, unknown values, in superstition and mysticism death, danger, endings. In branding(!), as it depicts a generic version of the product being promoted—as in “Brand X”—the unidentified product deprecated as inferior to the named brand; it can serve like the asterix in replacing key letters in taboo words, in demographics Generation X is the ill-defined, cohort, adrift and stranded between boomers and millennials. It can suggest the scene of the crime, the sniper’s crosshairs, if multiplied it can describe the strength of strong liquor or moonshine, it can imitate crossed fingers or a puckered or defiant closed mouth. All these and more potential senses of the sign make it both risky and confusing as a solo identifier. Musk’s declared notion that the sign will also remind us of our ‘imperfections’ is putting it very mildly indeed (and who wishes to be reminded of their imperfections every time they log on?). Geeks, nerds, ‘edgelords’ and tech-bros (and nepo-/man-babies too), as we have seen in the case of other dominant brands, have their own , touchingly ingenuous ideas of what is mysterious, evocative, triggering or inspiring. They also have the means to inflict these insights on the wider, often more engaged, more discerning online community…

I spoke to Clare Thorp of BBC Culture about the linguistic implications of the rebranding and Clare’s article is here…

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230728-twitters-rebrand-why-x-could-be-the-most-powerful-letter-in-english

The reaction of the World Wildlife Fund: the German text reads ‘Protect our wildlife before it is too late’

The reactions to the imposition of the new symbol by tweeters/tweeple/the twitterati (what should we call them now?), at least those who inhabit my corner of the platform, has been overwhelmingly negative, hostile and dismissive. Just a very few tech-bros, would-be influencers, crypto-enthusiasts have sympathised with Musk’s declared attempt to re-present the site as a multi-purpose, multimodal platform including new facilities such as banking, investment, dating(?). I have put together a checklist of articles commenting on all aspects of the venture, focusing especially on the symbolism and semiotics of the X itself. A small selection is here..

https://www.theweek.in/news/biz-tech/2023/07/24/a-brief-history-of-twitter-logo-and-xcom-as-musk-gears-up-to-free-the-bird.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/29/will-rebranding-twitter-give-elon-musk-the-x-factor-i-wouldnt-bank-on-it?CMP=share_btn_tw

https://apnews.com/article/twitter-tweet-elon-musk-x-c1c3871e9bef60aa0a4c1a40129c155a

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/28/the-guardian-view-on-twitters-rebranding-x-marks-an-everything-or-nothing-gamble?CMP=share_btn_tw

https://www.wionews.com/technology/explained-why-is-elon-musk-so-obsessed-with-the-letter-x-619050

On 30 July came news of a tagline or slogan designed to accompany ex-Twitter’s new visual identity. The phrase being promoted is ‘Blaze Your Glory’. @SmoothDunk’s response to this was a visual one:

…Other users of the site are fighting back, finding ways to delete or mask the ‘X’ trademark and restore their cherished bird symbol:

I talked to Jim Mora at Radio New Zealand on the same subject on August 4th:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018901451/tony-thorne-what-to-make-of-the-letter-x

…And, as if to confirm my misgivings about the choice of letter, the Guardian reported on August 8th: ‘Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.’