Commentary: Words evolve based on public use and technical precision, not because a president orders people to adopt them.

Dust off a dictionary from the early 1900s, and the term “computer” referred to someone whose job it was to perform arithmetic calculations — a human who computes. By the mid-20th century, a computer was redefined as an electronic calculating machine. Rather than by decree, the semantic change was driven by shifts in labor and technology. 

We seem to have entered a brave new world of executive English, where language isn’t determined by real-world usage, but as an instrument of authority imposed from above. 

The timing of the Trump administration’s executive order late last month mandating that federal agencies replace “artificial intelligence” with “super intelligence” in all official communication and policies was peak opportunism. Amid growing disdain for and distrust of a technology that threatens job displacement and human extinction, the White House framed the term as better capturing AI’s “promise, potential and rapidly advancing capabilities.”  

The term “super intelligence” is meant to put a positive spin on AI, a redefining that’s both “Pollyannish and dangerous,” said Naomi Susan Baron, a linguist and author of the book Reader Bot: What Happens When AI Reads and Why It Matters. 

In a disturbing statement reminiscent of a Red Scare tactic, President Donald Trump said Thursday on Truth Social that anyone who doesn’t use his preferred term will be considered an “enemy” of the White House. The implication is that organizations, including the press, could face consequences for continuing to use the term “artificial intelligence” — which, you may have noticed, is everywhere.

Source link