Debate over AI regulation and a new name for artificial intelligence gains momentum in the US

1–2 minutes

Trump proposes replacing the term AI and launches a public poll

On Sunday, October 20, US President Donald Trump once again called for a change in the name of artificial intelligence (AI). On his social media platform, Truth Social, he announced that he would remove the option ‘supreme intelligence’ from a poll he had created, leaving followers to choose between two alternatives: ‘superior intelligence’ or ‘extreme intelligence’.

The previous day, Trump launched a poll with three options to replace the term. He justified the initiative by saying that many people consider the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ to be imprecise and inelegant.

Risk of legislative deadlock increases pressure for AI regulations

Artificial intelligence has become a major topic of debate in the United States following warnings from industry executives who compared the technology’s risks to those of pandemics or nuclear war.

Last week, over a hundred Democratic members of the House of Representatives asked the Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, to cancel the recess to allow a vote on special bipartisan AI legislation.

The recess was maintained, and the House is not expected to resume activities until November 9, after the midterm elections.

Barack Obama calls for government regulation of AI

During an event at Colgate University in New York on Friday, October 18, former President Barack Obama, who rarely comments on political issues, argued that the government should be involved in regulating artificial intelligence.

I heard one of Donald Trump’s top advisors argue that ‘the market will take care of AI.’ That’s not how we deal with airlines, pharmaceutical companies, or food companies,” Obama said.

He argued that rules need to be created for the industry and that there are still ‘at least a few years’ to act, as artificial intelligence continues to evolve rapidly. According to Obama, the current administration is either unable or unwilling to establish a regulatory framework.