I opened X at midnight and a single line stopped me cold: the president wanted to rename “artificial intelligence.” He suggested “Superior Intelligence”—renaming it felt like swapping the label on a ticking bomb. You and I are suddenly invited to vote on the vocabulary that will frame an industry.
On September 19, 2026, he posted an X thread suggesting new names for “AI.”
I watched the thread as it rolled out: a short list of shiny options—Superior Intelligence, Extreme Intelligence, Supreme Intelligence—and a blunt call for votes. You can feel the intent: turn a technical debate into a PR contest, hand the microphone to millions, and seed a vocabulary that shapes policy and markets.
Many people think that the words “Artificial Intelligence” are inaccurate, and very ineloquent, relative to AI, or Artificial Intelligence. A far more elegant and accurate description of this new phenomena would be Superior Intelligence (SI) or, Extreme Intelligence (EI) or,…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2026
What does Trump want to rename AI to?
Short answer: he floated several names and asked the public to choose. At publication “Superior Intelligence” led with roughly 39.3% of the vote. I’ll warn you: the poll hides results unless you log in, and the optics of a president renaming a technology are more political theater than technical proposal.
On Truth Social and X the day before, the conversation was already spiraling into imagery and mythmaking.
You’ve seen his feed glow with AI-generated images—dramatic, violent, sometimes surreal. Two weeks earlier he posted an image that depicted Iran’s Kharg Island being destroyed and another of himself leading a sci-fi killing squad with the caption “THEY WILL NEVER SLEEP AGAIN.” That’s not branding; it’s amplification.
The feed is a theater mask glued to a machine: the more it performs, the harder it becomes to separate spectacle from policy. If you follow reporting in The Verge or the New York Times, the line between technology critique and political theater keeps blurring.
How do I vote in Trump’s AI poll on X?
Log into your X account and find the poll on @realDonaldTrump’s profile. The president didn’t provide a “view results without voting” option, so you have to participate to see the leaderboard. If you care how language frames regulation and investment, this is one of those small acts that matters.
On industry floors and inside labs, the renaming raises real questions for scientists and companies.
Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and other labs are building systems we call LLMs—large language models—that remix human knowledge to solve problems. Critics in outlets like The Verge argue language models are not the same as human intelligence; they “simulate” understanding. You and I can read that and ask whether a label like “Superior Intelligence” helps clarity or confuses the public further.
Why is Trump posting AI-generated images and what does it mean?
He’s tapping a powerful communication tool. AI images and text scale influence quickly; they shape narratives and can normalize extremes. Sarah Matthews, a former deputy press secretary, told the New York Times she worries the flood of AI content is numbing the public to how strange it is. I’m with her: when images replace context, reality becomes negotiable.
VOTE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2026
On the campaign trail and in the comment sections, the poll becomes a proxy fight over influence.
Renaming is about who owns the story. If a president brands a technology “Superior Intelligence,” that label filters into headlines, lobbying, and investor decks. I track how language changes market behavior: one convincing name can tilt venture dollars and regulatory appetite toward a different future.
Platforms matter here—X, Truth Social, and media outlets function as amplifiers. Anthropic and OpenAI will continue releasing models, but whether reporters write about “AI” or “SI” affects how policy makers and the public react.
If you want to influence the narrative, your vote in the poll is a small lever. If you care about how lawmakers and journalists will describe these systems, your click is not meaningless.
So here’s the practical part: will you vote for a rebrand that flattens technical nuance into a slogan, or will you push back and demand language that matches scientific limits and risks?
Will a new name change what these systems do—or will it just make them sound more dangerous?