Trump says his attempt to rename AI to SI will test the limit of his power
Brazil’s Lula earlier indicated that UN security council members had misused their veto power
Trump criticised the globalist agenda and said there would be no global taxes, to some applause
Trump’s speech retained an aggressive, unapologetic stance…threatening more violence and expansion of the military industrial complex
https://x.com/usaemportugues/status/2102418353897808003?s=46
Trump seen taking out Lula in some way:
https://x.com/kathleen_tyson_/status/2102332941053673631?s=46
Grok: The quote is from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 22 September 2026.
In Portuguese he said:
“O Brasil não cabe no quintal de ninguém.”
Common English renderings are:
• “Brazil does not fit in anyone’s backyard.”
• “Brazil belongs in no one’s backyard.”
The surrounding passage was: Latin America’s geographic proximity to the world’s greatest military power is inescapable, especially amid renewed hegemonic temptations; Brazil therefore needs partners with a positive development agenda, and ideological differences should not block integration among neighbors.
That line was widely read as a sovereignty message aimed at Washington.
Lula did not name the United States in the “backyard” sentence itself, but the surrounding text made the target clear: he noted Latin America’s “inescapable” proximity to “the world’s greatest military power,” warned about “renewed hegemonic temptations,” rejected dividing the world into spheres of influence, and said Brazil would not outsource defense of its borders or accept aircraft carriers watching its waters. He wanted cooperation against organized crime, not tutelage.
So the plain meaning is: Brazil is not a US backyard, will not accept being treated as one, and wants partners rather than a patron.
Notes
He has a sliver of a linguistic point and a much weaker case for the rename itself.
Where he is not crazy
“Artificial” can sound like “fake” or “imitation.” That is one ordinary English sense of the word. The field meant the other sense: made by artifice, i.e. engineered rather than evolved. Most people who work in the area already treat “AI” as a proper name, not a claim that the systems are counterfeit minds. Still, if your complaint is “the label undersells how capable this is getting,” that complaint is at least intelligible.
Where the rename fails
“Super intelligence” / “superintelligence” is already a technical term. In AI safety and philosophy it usually means intelligence far beyond humans across most domains—not today’s chatbots, image models, or coding assistants. Using it for the whole field collapses a useful distinction: current AI vs. a hypothetical successor. “Supreme intelligence” is worse; it is theological or grandiose, which is why it died in his own poll.
Renaming also does not change the thing. It does not settle safety, regulation, competition with China, or whether “artificial” is ineloquent. Official U.S. documents can say “SI” tomorrow; researchers, companies, standards bodies, and other countries will keep saying AI because that is the established term since the 1950s.
Bottom line
The marketing instinct—“don’t call the exciting thing fake”—is real. The proposed fix is sloppy: it overloads a word that already means something more specific, and it treats a branding preference as if it were a fact about the technology. You can dislike “artificial” without pretending a UN line rewrites the lexicon.
(Grok)above
DeepSeek:
President Trump announced a policy to rebrand Artificial Intelligence (AI) as “Super Intelligence” (SI) in U.S. government documents, and his reasoning was based on the word “artificial.”
🗣️ The Stated Reason: The Word “Artificial”
Trump argued during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly that the word “artificial” makes the technology sound “fake” when it is actually “amazing”. He believes the term “Super Intelligence” sounds better and is a “much more accurate” description of the technology’s capabilities.
📝 The Announcement
He stated that “from this point forward, all United States documents… will be changed to use the much more accurate term super as opposed to artificial”. This followed a social media poll he conducted days prior proposing alternative names like Superior Intelligence or Supreme Intelligence.