UNITED States President Donald Trump recently changed “Artificial Intelligence” to “Super Intelligence” in American documents — a change that many dismissed as just another silly statement. But it may not be quite so simple.
The word “artificial” can have negative implications, suggesting something created rather than natural, whereas “super” sounds positive and conjures images of superheroes — figures generally portrayed as powerful and good.
Changing the description from something that may sound negative or concerning to something positive and beneficial is not necessarily a change everyone supports or accepts. It is worth thinking about the politics behind such a shift in language.
***
Up in Smoke
There is a range of unusual university courses available. A quick Google search turns up fringe offerings such as “Harry Potter and the Age of Illusion” at Durham University, “Taylor Swift and Her World” at Harvard University, and “The Science of Superheroes” at the University of California — but apparently no basket weaving, either underwater or on dry land.
Courses like these might help attract students to tertiary education, but enrolments in the Australian course “AHC33924 Certificate III in Medicinal Cannabis Cultivation and Production” apparently have not been particularly high.
There are bound to be people interested in such a course, although some may have lost their way in more ways than one. They could, however, enjoy the workplace experience.
Tertiary student places are expensive, and perhaps they should be reserved for more serious courses.
***
Super Intelligent — a dumb idea
The suggestion — or instruction, in the United States — that Artificial Intelligence should now be called “Super Intelligence” seems silly and pointless.
As a child of the sixties, I naturally think of superheroes whenever I hear the word “super.” But then I start wondering about people who wear their underpants on the outside and masks over their faces. Those masks were meant to hide their identities, rather like ICE personnel today, although they might be more readily described as antiheroes.
I suspect it is simply another media stunt — either an attempt to generate more coverage amid clashes with some media outlets or to distract attention from other controversies, such as the Epstein files.
***
Don’t look now
As one of the more than eight billion largely unknown, unseen and basically anonymous people on this planet, I sometimes wonder why some people are so enthusiastic — or desperate — to be seen.
The United Kingdom has the Sussexes, who loudly ask for their privacy to be respected while regularly releasing photographs and comments and hardly living as recluses.
The United States has President Trump, whose disputes with media organizations have often involved outlets critical of him. His desire for visibility has even become entangled with debates surrounding the Kennedy Center and the use of his name. His image and name increasingly appear in prominent public settings. Some might say you can have too much of a good thing — although others might question whether it was a good thing in the first place.
Who do other countries have who simply must be seen? If you cannot name anyone, perhaps you should be grateful.
Many of the best and most valuable people are those who simply turn up and quietly do their jobs rather than constantly telling everyone how well they are doing them.
They are the ones we should be talking about./PN
