There has been a significant shift in U.S. technology policy recently. President Trump signed an executive order mandating that all federal agencies across the United States replace the term "Artificial Intelligence (AI)," which has been in use for decades, with "Superintelligence (SI)" in all official documents, policy reports, and public communications. In the executive order, Trump stated bluntly that the technology should not be viewed as "artificial." This move is seen not merely as a change in terminology, but as a strategic gamble by the U.S. government to maintain economic growth while circumventing existing regulatory frameworks.

This executive order immediately triggered a domino effect within the industry. According to relevant reports, multiple tech leaders, including NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, have quickly adjusted their rhetoric in public settings, opting to refer to the technology as "Superintelligence." Market analysts believe this battle over defining power reflects the U.S. government's attempt to reconfigure regulatory authority over future computing capabilities by redefining the scope of technology, while simultaneously seeking a new balance between technological development and ethical constraints.

However, this policy change has sparked varying levels of concern in both academia and the industry. Some experts point out that the mandatory renaming may merely simplify complex technological ethics issues, fearing that so-called "ethical constraints" could become a "fig leaf" for tech giants to evade responsibility. Meanwhile, the tech market remains skeptical about the profitability of high capital expenditures. Taking SpaceX as an example, although its 14th Starship test flight successfully reached orbit and deployed 26 Starlink satellites—marking a significant milestone for the manned lunar landing program—its stock price fell by over 2%.

Beyond concerns regarding Starship recovery technology and manned safety testing, market investors are also focusing on whether the company's high capital expenditures in "Superintelligence"-related businesses can be converted into tangible profits.

From the perspective of global trade and security, technological transformation is closely linked to the stability of energy supply chains. According to the latest estimates from J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, although the U.S.-Iran conflict has persisted for eight months and shipping risks remain, Middle Eastern crude oil transport volumes have rebounded to 17.5 million barrels per day, approximately 98% of pre-war levels. Analysts believe that given the ongoing conflict, the recovery of export channels to this level is "astonishing," though the recovery is uneven, with refined petroleum product (such as diesel and gasoline) transport volumes having only recovered to 58% of pre-war levels.

This data indicates that although the global tech industry is undergoing a definitional transition to "Superintelligence," the resilience of traditional energy supply chains and geopolitical risks remain key variables affecting the stability of the Asia-Pacific and global economies.

For relevant industries, policy changes and market volatility present dual challenges. On one hand, tech companies must adapt to the U.S. government's new regulatory and narrative framework for "Superintelligence," which may affect future R&D investment directions and compliance costs. On the other hand, the cautious attitude of investors toward high-valuation tech companies shows that the market is no longer satisfied with mere declarations of technological breakthroughs and is demanding clear paths to profitability. Furthermore, as global supply chains gradually adapt to energy transport fluctuations caused by geopolitics, companies must incorporate both technological policy shifts and energy supply imbalances into their assessments of cross-border operational risks.

Currently, various sectors remain reserved regarding the long-term impact of the "Superintelligence" renaming policy. Experts warn against over-interpreting the impact of a single name change on the substantive development of technology. The focus should be on whether the U.S. government will subsequently introduce specific regulatory details for "SI" and whether these policies will further spread to technology regulations in the Asia-Pacific region. Subsequent observation will focus on: first, the specific regulatory actions taken by U.S. federal agencies after implementing the SI policy; second, the strategic adjustments made by tech giants like SpaceX in balancing capital expenditure and profit returns; and third, the stability of Middle Eastern energy transport amid the ongoing conflict and its ripple effects on global inflation and industrial costs.