California's Stand on AI Terminology: A Clash of Governance Visions

Amid the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, a quiet battle over terminology has emerged between the U.S. federal government and state authorities. On October 1st, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a decisive executive order, mandating that all state agencies under his jurisdiction continue to use the terms "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" in official documents, communications, and policy matters.

California's Stance: Upholding "AI" for Policy Consistency

The order specifies that state entities will not alter their terminology in response to federal changes, unless future legislation explicitly requires it. The governor's office emphasized that this decision is rooted in a need to maintain clarity in technology governance and stability in policy implementation. Frequent shifts in foundational terms could lead to public confusion, regulatory disconnects, and increased compliance burdens for businesses.

As a global hub for technological innovation, California's policies often set trends. State officials argue that "Artificial Intelligence" carries decades of accumulated academic, industrial, and public discourse, forming a widely recognized framework. Abandoning it abruptly could undermine existing regulatory structures and collaborative ecosystems.

The Federal Shift: Rebranding with "Super Intelligence"

This state-level action is a direct response to a recent federal directive. On September 29th, former President Trump signed a federal executive order requiring all executive departments to adopt "Super Intelligence" (SI) in place of "AI" for non-legal official materials, including websites, reports, and public communications.

The White House rationale was that "Super Intelligence" better captures the advanced capabilities and transformative potential of contemporary AI systems, aiming to frame the technology within a more ambitious narrative. However, the federal order included key limitations:

  • It applies only to new documents and communications within the federal executive branch.
  • It does not require amendments to existing laws, historical contracts, or codified regulations.
  • Legally, "Super Intelligence" currently inherits the existing statutory definition of "Artificial Intelligence."

Beyond Semantics: Diverging Approaches to Tech Governance

What appears as a mere lexical dispute reveals deeper philosophical divides in governance. The federal move seeks to establish a forward-looking narrative through new terminology, potentially paving the way for novel legislation. California's approach prioritizes pragmatism and continuity, ensuring the effectiveness of current policy tools and avoiding disruption from terminological flux.

For California's tech companies, research institutions, and investors, the state's decision signals a commitment to a predictable regulatory environment. In areas where federal and state policies may diverge, California is charting a course that emphasizes independence and consistency.

While the immediate impact of this terminology clash is confined to official documentation, it offers a telling case study in the complexities of multi-layered governance in the AI age. Whether other states will follow California's lead or adopt the federal nomenclature remains an open question.