Super Intelligence vs AI: What Changed in 2026

For most of the last decade, “AI” was the term of art in U.S. federal policy. Since September 29, 2026, it is not. This guide explains the change in plain terms, what it left untouched, and how to read a federal document that now says “SI.”

What changed

Executive Order 14434, “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence,” was signed on September 29, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2026. Its operative instruction is in Section 2(a): “To the maximum extent permitted by law,” executive departments and agencies “shall use ‘Super Intelligence’ and ‘SI’ in place of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’” in “official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents.”

The accompanying fact sheet summarizes it the same way: “The Order directs all departments and agencies to use the terms ‘Super Intelligence’ and ‘SI’ in official correspondence.” The stated reason, from Section 1, is that “The terminology used by the Federal Government should reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies.”

The visible effects came quickly. NIST posted a note that it “is working to update its communications to incorporate the term ‘super intelligence’ as directed,” and its Information Technology Laboratory’s AI program now appears as the ITL SI Program. The White House’s AI policy site moved to si.gov, “America’s home for Super Intelligence policy.”

What stayed the same

Legally, almost everything.

The definition. Section 3(a) of the order provides that “Super Intelligence” and “SI” “mean the technologies and systems encompassed by the term ‘artificial intelligence’” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), “unless and until superseded by subsequent Presidential action” or an Act of Congress. That statute, from the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, covers “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.” The scope of what counts as “SI” is therefore identical to what counted as “AI” the day before the order.

Existing documents. Section 2(b): “Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants” or other historical documents. Freshfields notes that “the order does not require agencies to revise previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants.”

Statutes. An executive order cannot rewrite the U.S. Code. Every law that uses “artificial intelligence” still uses it, and agencies applying those laws are bound by their text. The order’s own qualifier, “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” acknowledges this.

Scope. The order governs the federal executive branch. It does not direct Congress, the judiciary, state governments, or private parties to change their language.

Industry obligations. The order creates no new requirements for companies. Freshfields also points out that the companion White House Accord on Super Intelligence, signed the same day by executives of Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI and NVIDIA, is voluntary; as Infosecurity Magazine reported, “The agreement creates no new regulatory requirements.”

How to read “SI” in a federal document

A practical rule of thumb, drawn from the order’s text:

1. If the document was issued on or after September 29, 2026 by a federal executive agency, read “SI” or “Super Intelligence” as a direct substitute for “AI.” The meaning is the § 9401(3) definition unless the document says otherwise.
2. If the document predates the order, it will say “AI,” and it has not been changed. Section 2(b) makes clear it did not need to be.
3. If the document is a statute, a court opinion, or a state document, the order does not apply. Expect “AI.”
4. If the document is a contract or solicitation, check its definitions section. The terms may have been swapped in new instruments; existing ones stand as written.
5. Do not read “SI” as a capability claim. A federal report that refers to an “SI system” is describing an AI system under the new label, not asserting that the system is Super Intelligence in the research sense.

The 60-day definition proposal

The one part of the order that could eventually change the legal picture is Section 3(b). “Within 60 days of the date of this order,” the “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST)” “shall submit to the President proposed legislative language” establishing a federal definition of Super Intelligence. The proposal must assess whether the new definition should modify or replace the existing statutory definition, identify conforming amendments, and recommend further executive action.

Freshfields identifies the APST as Michael J. Kratsios and puts the deadline at November 28, 2026. It adds that any eventual statutory definition “could affect future federal incentives, export controls, oversight, compliance duties, and contract requirements.” But the deliverable is a proposal. Unless and until Congress enacts it, “SI” keeps the § 9401(3) meaning.

Practical implications for companies with federal contracts

Law firms writing on the order agree on the immediate effect: expect a vocabulary change in new federal paperwork, not a substantive one.

Freshfields advises that contractors, grant applicants and parties filing regulatory comments “should expect solicitations, forms, and correspondence to use the new terminology.” The firm’s summary of the order’s legal weight is that it “establishes an official policy across the executive branch to replace the terms,” while existing instruments are untouched.

Writing in Forbes, Lance Eliot flags areas where friction could arise later: documents that use “AI” without defining it, where a substitution could invite argument over meaning; the possibility that a future federal definition of SI diverges from the AI definition and has “not been tested in court”; and the chance that states and localities adopt the new term with their own definitions. His view is that “The new Executive Order changing the name of AI to Super Intelligence is going to have some rough legal bumps up ahead.” Eliot also notes the order is prospective and confined to the executive branch.

For a company holding federal contracts today, the sensible steps are mundane: watch for “SI” in new solicitations and modifications, confirm that any new definition clause still points to § 9401(3) or an equivalent, and track the November 2026 proposal and any subsequent legislation.

(We looked for a K&L Gates analysis of the order and could not locate one at the time of publication; this page will be updated if one is published.)

Beyond the executive branch: who else has switched

The order does not require anyone outside government to change terms, but some companies have chosen to. On October 4, 2026, Elon Musk said on X that SpaceXAI, the SpaceX unit formed when xAI was folded into the company, would be renamed SpaceXSI, writing “No more AI. SI, it’s better.” Reuters reported his confirmation, “Yes, we will make that change.” On October 9, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff posted, “The era of Super Intelligence is here. AIForce is officially SIForce.” On October 10, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella published a post titled “Models as Insider Risks in the Super Intelligence Era.”

Others have not. OpenAI’s Sam Altman said the company has “no plans” to rename, adding, “we have been talking about super intelligence a lot, and we will continue to talk about it.” SI Builders logs each of these adoptions, with dates and sources, in the Super Intelligence Terminology Tracker.

Do not confuse the label with the research concept

The word the order borrowed has a prior meaning. In AI research, “superintelligence” refers to a hypothetical intellect that, in Nick Bostrom’s formulation, “greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest”. Companies such as Safe Superintelligence Inc. and Meta Superintelligence Labs use the word in that sense, as a goal.

The federal “SI” is not that. It is a name for the same systems that were called AI in 2025, defined by the same statute. Reading a 2026 federal document as a claim that the government has deployed, or regulates, Super Intelligence in the research sense would be a mistake. Keeping the two meanings separate is the single most useful habit for anyone following this field.

Corrections: corrections@sibuilders.io.