Here is a question I have been chewing on. What if the reason so many people feel uneasy about AI is not only the technology? What if part of it is the name?
I recorded a video on this, and in this post I want to slow it down and work through it. The word "artificial." What "superintelligence" is supposed to mean. Why the answer may change how people feel. Who gets to enjoy the benefits first, and what the rest of us can do about that. And at the end, a plain rule for what to believe online while all of this moves so fast. Watch the video first, then come back for the full version.
TL;DR
- "Artificial" sounds fake, like a fake sweetener. It never carried much credibility, and I think it holds the whole field back with ordinary people.
- "Superintelligence" is a better description of where the systems are headed. It names a thing greater than us, not a copy of us.
- The term "artificial intelligence" began as a label at a summer workshop in the 1950s. It was partly a marketing choice from day one.
- These are my opinions and observations, not settled facts. I flag where I am sure and where I am guessing.
- Whoever builds and funds these systems first will enjoy the benefits first. The open question is whether the rest of us get a share.
- Rules about who may build these systems can protect people. They can also protect the big players. Ask who benefits.
- Right now a lot of what shows up in your feed is fake. Stay skeptical. Check before you share.
The branding question
I have said this for a long time, and you can go back through my videos and see it. The word "artificial" does not sound real. It does not carry credibility. It loses flavor. It makes people picture something plastic.
Think about how we use the word in daily life. Artificial flavor. Artificial turf. Artificial sweetener. In every one of those, the artificial thing is the stand-in for the genuine one. It is the one you settle for. Nobody says "I wish I had more artificial in my life."
So when we attach that word to the most capable technology in a generation, we plant a small seed of distrust before anyone has used the thing. People hear "artificial" and part of their brain files it as not quite right, not quite true to its name, not quite the real article. I think that shapes how folks react, long before they read a single headline about what the tools can do.
I am not claiming a name change fixes everything. I am saying names matter, and this one has had a quiet cost.
Where "artificial intelligence" came from
The phrase is old. As the story is usually told, it was coined in the 1950s around a summer research workshop at Dartmouth College. I take that to be a naming decision made partly to attract interest and funding for a new field. In other words, a sales play. A marketing term.
I am not saying that to knock the researchers. A good name does help a new field get attention. But it is worth remembering that "artificial intelligence" was chosen for a purpose, in a specific time, by specific people. It is not a law of nature. It does not have to stay the word we use just because it has been the word for seventy years.
The same goes for the ladder of terms that grew up around it. Artificial intelligence. Then artificial general intelligence, the idea of a system that can do a broad range of tasks the way a person can. Each new term was an attempt to describe the next rung. Superintelligence is the term for a rung above that.
The original intelligence is you
Here is the part that matters most to me. Think about who the original intelligence is. It is you. It is whoever is reading this. You are the one doing the thinking, the weighing, the deciding.
And it does not matter to this point whether you believe people came about through a creation story or through evolution. Either way, you are the original. You are the thing that all of this was modeled on, trained on and built from. The tools learned from what we wrote, said, drew and recorded.
So when we call the result artificial, I think we get something a little backward. We built a system that can, in more and more areas, exceed us. Is that "artificial" in the sense of fake? I do not think so. It is real, it works, it produces real results in the world. It is something new. And calling it "super" intelligence, or SI, is a more accurate label for a thing that can outperform its makers at specific tasks.
If you want a plain explanation of what these tools are before going further, my guide to what AI is, explained in plain English is a good place to start.
What superintelligence is supposed to mean
Let me describe it the way people in this field describe it, and then I will tell you where I stand.
The idea is a system that is far more capable than the best human minds across a very wide range of work. One that is fast. One that finds patterns we miss. One that, in some tellings, can improve itself, meaning it can help design a better version of itself, which then helps design a better one again. Picture an evolutionary process baked into a machine, running at a speed that is hard for us to follow.
That is the theory. Is it here today? I think we are closer than many people want to admit, and that on a growing list of tasks these systems already beat most of us. But I also want to be careful. "Closer" is a judgment, not a measurement. Nobody can say with certainty how fast it will go or whether the trend will hold. If it keeps compounding the way some expect, then the label "superintelligence" will start to fit in the near future. If it stalls, the label arrives later. I would rather say that plainly than pretend to know.
What I will say is this. The word fits the direction better than "artificial" does. And I think the shift in word may change how people feel about the whole thing.
A note on something I heard in the news
In the video I mention that I heard a national leader use the word superintelligence in public. I said in the video that I was not even sure who said it. That is how I remember it, in my own words, and I am not going to give you the name or a quote I cannot back up.
I bring it up only because of what it signals. When a word moves out of research labs and into everyday public speech, it is a sign that the idea is moving too. People who never read a technical paper hear it, and they start to form an opinion. That is the stage where branding matters most. The label people hear first often becomes the frame they keep.
If you want to know exactly who said what and when, go to a primary source, a transcript or a recording, and read it yourself. Do not take my paraphrase, or anyone else's, as the record.
Who gets the benefits first
Now the harder part. Suppose these systems keep getting better. They are already helping with problems that have stumped people for a long time, in math and in science. Some people expect they will help crack open biology too. I hope so. That could mean better medicine and longer, healthier lives.
But who gets that first? In my experience, new advantages go first to the people already closest to the source. The well-funded. The well-connected. The people in the right schools, the right circles, the right rooms at the right moment. A lot of that is just convenience and timing, not villainy. It is how new things usually spread.
Think about how this plays out. If you are already near the money and the labs, then people bring you ideas, and you can put some money into them early. Say a person tells you they have a concept for a chip that runs without elaborate cooling, and asks for a small investment. If it pays off, a small early check can become something enormous. That is the kind of door that opens for the people near the top of this field.
I am not against anyone for that. Good for them. I only hope that some of the benefit spreads outward, the way crumbs fall off a table, to those of us living closer to the edge. People who work, pay the bills month to month, and still worry about health insurance. For a household like that, one bad month, a broken hip or a fall off a couch, can be a life-changing event. If this technology is going to modernize the world, I want the people who live paycheck to paycheck to be in the plan, not only in the test group.
My own post on whether AI is the great leveler or the great replacement takes up that same question from another angle.
Getting hit and getting up
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. That line gets attributed to a famous boxer, and the quote I like from a famous movie boxer goes further. It is not about how hard you hit. It is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.
I think that is the right frame for ordinary people in a fast-moving era. The change is coming either way. Some of it will help you. Some of it will knock you sideways. A job changes. A skill you leaned on gets automated. An industry you trusted shifts under you. The question is not whether you will ever get hit. It is whether you get up and keep moving.
The practical version is simple. Learn the tools. Use them in your own work. Know what they can and cannot do for your trade. Build a few new skills while you still have the runway. And do not wait for permission or for a perfect explanation. My piece on why no one is coming to save you from AI goes into the practical side of that.
Regulation, and the question of who benefits
This is the section where I want to be most careful, because it is opinion and I want to label it as opinion.
It looks to me like some of the biggest builders of these systems have been asking for regulation. On its face that is a reasonable thing to want. Powerful technology deserves rules. But I think it is fair to ask a second question whenever someone asks for rules. What does the rule do for them?
Here is how I think it through, as questions and not accusations. A rule can protect the public. A rule can also spread out responsibility, so that a company that follows the rule has a stronger case that it did what was expected. A rule can also create a barrier. If compliance needs credentials, staff, lawyers and approvals, then smaller players have a harder time getting in, and the large players have a wider moat around what they already built.
I am not saying any particular company is doing any of that on purpose. I do not know anyone's motives, and I would not assert them. I am saying these are the right questions to ask, any time the people who would be regulated are also the people asking for the regulation. Who is protected? Who pays? Who is kept out?
The access gap
There is one more piece that bothers me. Some of the strongest models, as I understand it, are used first by large organizations, and sometimes held back from the public in the name of safety. Maybe that is wise. If a model is very good at finding weaknesses in computer systems, it may make sense to let the defenders use it first and patch what they find before everyone else gets it. I would not argue with that.
But it does mean the public sees a delayed version of what exists. The people who have the best tools get to build, learn and compound faster. The gap widens. And a rule that makes it hard to build your own strong system can lock that gap in place.
I also do not want to pretend I know exactly how hard it would be to oversee something like this. Unlike some other technologies, a powerful AI model is not something with an obvious physical signature that can be detected from far away. It is software. Software can be copied, stored and moved around in ways that are hard to see. That makes oversight genuinely difficult, and I think anyone who tells you it is simple is selling something.
My worry, and I will say it as a worry and not a fact, is that ordinary people and small companies could end up with the heaviest rules while the biggest players hold the best tools. I would like to see a world where that does not happen. It is worth watching how this plays out.
A comparison to a wild frontier
It reminds me a little of other fast-moving spaces where the rules are still being written and the claims run ahead of the evidence. Peptides come to mind, where there is a lot of excitement, a lot of confidence, and a lot of people selling certainty they do not have.
When a space is moving that fast, the same habits keep you safe. Slow down. Ask who is selling what. Ask what the evidence is. Ask what happens if it is wrong. Ask who pays when it goes wrong, and whether that is you.
Excitement is fine. I am excited about this technology. I think it will modernize a lot of things for the better. But excitement is not a substitute for checking.
What to believe online right now
This is the part I most want you to remember. We are, as I write this on October 5, 2026, in a stretch where a lot of what is served to us is fake. Images. Audio. Video. Screenshots. Fake quotes with real names attached. Fake endorsements. Posts written by software and passed off as human opinion.
My own take, which I said at the end of the video, is to always be a little skeptical of what you see, of the information passed to you in your circles, and of what you are watching. Do not assume it is real. That is a strong way to put it, and I know it, but I think it is the right default for now. Treat everything as unverified until you have a reason to trust it.
Here is a short habit that helps.
- Find the source. Who first said or published this? Not who shared it. Who made it?
- Look for the original. Is there a full recording, a document, a primary page? A clip of a clip is the weakest form.
- Check the date. Old things get recirculated as new all the time.
- Notice how you feel. Content built to make you angry or afraid is built to be shared. Slow down when your pulse jumps.
- Do not pass it on until you have checked. Every share is a vote.
For another look at the cost of trusting a tool too quickly, read my post on why AI is not a neutral judge.
Checklist: what to do this week
- Pick one AI tool and use it for one real task in your own work.
- Write down one place where this technology could change your job or business in the next year.
- Pick one skill you can build on that is hard to automate, such as trust, relationships or local knowledge.
- Before you share anything dramatic, find the original source.
- When someone proposes a rule about AI, ask who it protects and who it keeps out.
- Talk to someone you trust about how you use these tools. Share notes. Learn out loud.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between AI and superintelligence?
In common use, AI means systems that do tasks that normally take human intelligence. Superintelligence describes a system that is far more capable than the best humans across a broad range of work. It is a description of a level of ability, and today people disagree about how close we are.
Is "artificial intelligence" a bad name?
That is my opinion, yes. I think the word "artificial" suggests something fake or second-best, and that this makes it harder for people to trust or take seriously a tool that does real work. Other people disagree, and that is fine.
Where did the term artificial intelligence come from?
As it is commonly told, the term was coined in the 1950s around a research workshop at Dartmouth College. In my view it was partly a marketing choice meant to draw attention to a new field.
Is superintelligence already here?
It depends on how you define it. On many narrow tasks, these systems already beat most people. Whether a single system is better than humans at everything is a harder question, and I would not claim certainty either way.
Will ordinary people benefit from this technology?
I hope so, and I think it is possible. But new advantages often reach well-connected people first, so it is worth paying attention, speaking up and learning the tools so you are not left waiting.
Are new AI rules a good thing?
Rules can protect the public. They can also raise barriers for smaller players or shift responsibility around. I think it is worth asking, each time, who benefits and who is kept out.
How do I know if something online is real?
Find the original source, check the date, look for a full recording or document, and be wary of content that is designed to make you angry or afraid. If you cannot verify it, do not share it.
Should I be afraid of this?
I would not say afraid. I would say alert. The technology is real and it is moving fast. Learn it, use it, stay skeptical, and keep your own judgment.
Where to go from here
The short version. The word "artificial" may be holding back how people see a very real technology, and "superintelligence" may describe where it is going better. Whatever we call it, it is built from us and it is powerful. Ask who benefits, learn the tools, protect your skills and your savings, and treat what you see online as unverified until you check it.
If you want help figuring out where these tools fit in your own work, or you want a second set of eyes on how to use them without getting burned, book a time at bookwithhonor.com, or call my AI line at (661) 219-7299.
I am Connor. Thanks for reading.