How China’s AI term and Trump’s “Super Intelligence” frame AI’s future, in SCMP’s view

What does China call AI, and what does SCMP infer?

China’s State Council used 人工智能 in a 2025 policy document on its AI Plus initiative. That confirms the term’s use in an official document; it does not explain why officials use it or assign it a political meaning.

SCMP interprets the Chinese term as having a human-centered connotation, in contrast with language that foregrounds artificiality. That is the newspaper’s reading, not a stated position from China’s government. SCMP’s comparison presents the contrast as a difference in emphasis, not evidence that Chinese officials selected the term to convey that idea.

The White House has offered a different rationale for Trump’s wording: it says “Super Intelligence” better reflects AI’s advancing capabilities and opportunities. SCMP reported that Trump objects to “artificial” because, he said, it makes the technology sound “fake.” These are explanations for the administration’s choice of words, not independent assessments of what AI systems can do.

What changes under Trump’s order?

The directive applies to specified materials outside statutes, rather than requiring a wholesale revision of federal law. It says agencies need not change existing regulations or historical documents, and it applies only to the extent permitted by law.

The order defines “Super Intelligence” and “SI” by reference to the existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence, unless that definition is later superseded. Its terminology therefore does not, on its own, change the legal definition agencies use for implementation.

The order gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 60 days to submit proposed legislative language for a federal definition. That deadline calls for a proposal, not an enacted definition. The sources do not establish how the proposed language might differ from the current statutory definition.

What do the names reveal about AI’s future?

SCMP frames Trump’s choice as emphasizing intelligence beyond the ordinary, while reading China’s term as more centered on people. The article also notes that the name AI dates to 1956. Those points describe the paper’s interpretation of language and its historical context; they do not verify either government’s intentions.

The official Chinese policy document establishes use of 人工智能, not the human-centered meaning SCMP assigns to it. The US order establishes a change in terminology for specified federal materials, not a change in AI development. The evidence supports a contrast in wording and an administration-stated rationale, but not a conclusion that the two governments have adopted different AI policies because of those names.

The next concrete steps are how agencies apply the wording direction and what definition the science adviser proposes. Until then, the names offer competing frames for discussing AI’s future, not a measure of the technology’s capabilities.