U.S. President Donald Trump has issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to replace the term "artificial intelligence" (AI) with "Super Intelligence" (SI) in official communications, policy documents, and websites. The White House stated that the change is intended to better capture the rapidly advancing capabilities and expansive potential of the technology. Trump expressed concern that the word "artificial" conveys a sense of inauthenticity, suggesting the technology sounds "fake."

The controversy over terminology reflects deeper differences between the United States and China regarding the conceptual framing of AI. While the English term "artificial intelligence" dates back to 1956, coined by American computer scientist John McCarthy, China’s equivalent term, rengong zhinen, offers a different perspective focused on human involvement. The phrase, derived from the Japanese term jinko chino, translates roughly as "human-made intelligence"—combining characters meaning "human," "work," and "intelligence."

According to Shuang Frost, assistant professor at Aarhus University specializing in Chinese AI translation, the Chinese expression emphasizes that intelligence systems are products of human effort rather than synthetic or alien entities. This framing emerged particularly around 1980 when AI became an academic field in China, where early theorists interpreted the technology through a Marxist lens as a tool designed to enhance human capabilities.

Frost highlighted that while many Chinese speakers may not consciously consider this history, the linguistic structure of rengong zhinen inherently ties the technology to human creation, making the concept of "artificial" less central than in English. The term has also inspired cultural commentary in China, where some remark humorously that AI-powered products involve "more human labor than intelligence," referencing the significant manual work behind the scenes in labeling data and supporting automated systems.

Despite the established use of rengong zhinen, some researchers, like Chao Hao of the National University of Singapore, suggest that a shorter, more accessible term might complement the official name, similar to colloquial Chinese labels like diannao ("electric brain") for computer and shouji ("hand machine") for mobile phone. Chao noted that discussions in China focus on accessibility, linguistic identity, and effective public communication.

Frost pointed out a fundamental difference in naming debates between the U.S. and China. In the U.S., the push to replace "artificial intelligence" stems from the perception that the technology has outgrown its English label. In contrast, the Chinese debate often questions the increasing adoption of the English abbreviation "AI" over the established native term rengong zhinen.

Nonetheless, Frost cautioned against viewing the divergence as a simple cultural divide. Chinese technological terminology is profoundly transnational, having been influenced by Japanese sources and Western scholarship. Terms often evolve and adapt as concepts travel across languages and cultures.

Looking forward, Frost raised the possibility that rengong zhinen could face challenges as AI systems increasingly improve themselves through recursive self-improvement, potentially distancing human involvement from the direct creation of machine intelligence. This evolving relationship may prompt a shift in terminology, perhaps incorporating terms like chaoji zhineng ("super intelligence") in specific contexts to reflect advanced capabilities while maintaining linguistic ties to human creation.