The real reason they want to change the name of AI to “Super Intelligence”

Bottom line: Subjugation

Dear Leader today made a grand proclamation for all who live in his great land:

"The White House considers anyone that uses the term, 'Artificial Intelligence,' as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, 'Super Intelligence,' THE ENEMY!"

It’s easy to scratch this up as another episode of the ego-tripping fever dream we call American politics. And to him, perhaps it is his way to mark his scent on something that is taking the world by storm.

However, as usual let’s read between (and behind) the lines.

Even if he has no master motive behind the renaming, someone advising him does. Most of the insanity taking place over the past two years isn’t haphazard. Rather, each change, each purge, each warped convention is a tiny cog in a grand machine built for power of control. Renaming “AI” as “SI” is no exception.

To give this change weight, it is important to appreciate that it’s not merely applicable to his speeches or face-to-face conversations. Rather, it applies to every Federal agency and sycophant-led tech corporation doing business with the US government. Tech corporatism has been present from day 1 of this administration, so it’s only a matter of time until they fall in line.

Anyhoo…this article isn’t about the wasting time and taxpayer resources or prioritizing trivial matters. Rather, I want to examine the deeper sociological implications of renaming ‘artificial intelligence’ to ‘super intelligence’.

Words matter. And this is why this seemingly superfluous edit has greater meaning to the fascist cause.

Consider other phrases manufactured by the Dukes and Duchesses of America over the past century. ‘Collateral damage’, ‘right sizing’, ‘revenue enhancement’ are all terms used to either mask or reconnect the association within one’s mind. For example, ‘right sizing’ sounds like an adjustment to normal, when in reality it is often about firing thousands of people to slash expenses. Usually in response to a market slowdown. Similarly, ‘collateral damage’ is about accidentally killing innocent bystanders when bombing the shit out of foreign countries for reasons. ‘Revenue enhancement’ is about taking wealth from citizens to fund government profligacy.

The re-positioning of AI to SI goes beyond simply attempting to fit some new definition for the technology. Rather, it aligns with the post-collapse world tech bros, billionaires and corrupt elites are trying to build. One where they control everything at the expense of the (remaining) masses.

They’re cornering the market on everything useful. They are claiming the resources, the land, the money…and now value of human labour: physical exertion and intelligence.

This isn’t new. The war against labour has been fought for centuries. But, in the minds of the elites, this is the final battle as humanity stumbles into collapse.

In a post-collapse world, they envision a reality resembling that of historical feudal states, where most people were peasants who owned nothing and were nothing. I recently walked through this idea:

How does re-wording “AI” as “SI” help them tighten control?

The shift from ‘artificial’ (fake, false, imitation) to ‘super’ (better, superior, elite) perfectly aligns to their mission.

If the Zucks of the world get to live out their wet dream, AI will soon replace and impoverish millions of workers. Millions of others who remain in the workforce might find themselves managed by some kind of artificial overseer. All of us might be policed by AI-brained oppressive robots. The theme is that these things will not only replace us, they will control us.

Of course, the other side of the coin argues this massive capex boom will soon be revealed to have minimal-to-negative ROI, resulting in a huge bust. Over the long run, both could be true. It often takes many years for productivity gains from new technology to materialize. Even if there’s a bust, the technology infrastructure is here and it will be used. We have to prepare for all eventualities.

Back to “artificial” vs “super”.

My point, which I’ve taken too long to get to, is this: Control over our lives will be far easier if we are convinced the things that stole our jobs, removed our independence, and monitor our very existence are superior to us. While ‘artificial’ leaves room for vulnerabilities that humans can overcome because humans maintain a perceived intelligence edge, ‘super’ implies humans are sub-par and cannot win. And by corollary, the handful of masters that control the ‘super intelligent’ are far superior to everyone else.

It’s psychological warfare. Make the enemy (humans in this case) think they are defeated before a shot is even fired.

Will the masses fall for it? Likely not immediately. But for thousands of years, people have been convinced that certain religious leaders and royalty have a direct line to God, justifying their historical positions of power. Beat the idea into our heads for long enough and many will eventually succumb. Remember: they control all branches of government, most major news outlets, and social media.

I’d almost argue people desire to believe in the idea of superiority. After all, it was as recent as the 20th century that an entire civilization, motivated by the belief they were the “master race”, was convinced to overlook brutal inhumanity and wage a horrific ideologically-driven war that killed 85 million people.

Eugenics also coursed through the veins of the New World, portions of which determined that the economic costs of giving up their ‘superiority’ was worth a nasty civil war.

A social animal, perhaps humans are inherently inclined to fall back into systems that consider certain groups more equal than others.

Whether achievable or not, the executive order directing a change from Artificial Intelligence to Super Intelligence is yet another nudge towards our subjugation.

Words matter, and the propaganda that our future masters are better than us has already begun.

The news networks are now controlled by a handful of billionaires to propel their personal agendas. If you value truth, freedom of speech, and alternative views I encourage you to support independent thinking.

You can help by liking, sharing, or subscribing. None of my content is behind a paywall because I want it available to all. However, paid subscriptions help support my research and writing.

With that said, today’s independent media system is financially challenging for subscription-based models. While one cable subscription of ~$50/mth (not sure what it costs these days) gets you multiple news sources with huge desks, the a la carte model of subscribing to independent, unbiased newsletters is cumbersome and can get costly. It also incentivizes authors to dilute their content or ramble unnecessarily to increase frequency of posts (to justify the recurring subscription). I try to write two articles per week, but cut back to one if I feel like I don’t have anything important to share.

For this reason, I also make available a tip-based model for readers. If you find a particular article interesting or helpful, you can support without committing to (yet another) subscription by making a one-time contribution.