In early October 2026, the global technology industry underwent a significant change in terminology. U.S. President Trump signed an executive order mandating that all federal agencies officially replace the long-standing term "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) with "Super Intelligence" (SI) in all official documents and communications. This policy is not merely a change in name, but symbolizes the U.S. government's attempt to redefine the strategic height of current technological development.

Following the issuance of this order, tech leaders such as Elon Musk have responded quickly, publicly confirming the renaming of relevant divisions to "SpaceXSI," demonstrating the direct impact of the executive order on the industry. This move is seen as an attempt by U.S. officials to use a forceful linguistic revolution to guide the global tech industry's perception of computing power and intelligence levels.

In terms of practical tech industry operations, despite the change in terminology, the growth momentum of the global semiconductor supply chain remains focused on High-Performance Computing (HPC). According to multiple media reports, TSMC, as a key manufacturing partner for tech giants like Nvidia and Apple, continues to see its core operations benefit from the robust growth in AI and HPC demand. The proportion of HPC business in TSMC's revenue continues to climb, reflecting that the focus of the global semiconductor market has shifted entirely from traditional consumer electronics to data centers, AI servers, and high-end computing chips.

This trend aligns with the U.S. government's strategic goal of promoting "Super Intelligence," indicating that regardless of how definitions change, the construction of computing infrastructure remains the decisive point in global technological competition.

However, while technology develops, cybersecurity threats are also escalating. Microsoft's latest security report indicates that state-sponsored hacking activities in 2026 are more severe than they were two years ago, with the number of attacks against Taiwan ranking third globally, and Japan ranking fourth, showing that the Asia-Pacific region has become a hotspot for geopolitics and cyber espionage. Additionally, the Chinese cyber espionage group TA419 recently targeted U.S. AI policy circles, conducting phishing attacks by impersonating former White House officials in an attempt to steal policy-related information. The British government has also issued a warning, noting that Chinese intelligence agencies are attempting to enhance their technical espionage capabilities by funding AI and cybersecurity research.

These reports reveal that behind technological progress lies complex national security dynamics, and the struggle for control over AI technology among nations has entered a white-hot stage.

For the Oceania region, technology governance and social security also face multiple challenges. A recent serious public safety incident in Newcastle, Australia, where a car drove into a crowd, causing severe injuries to many, including children, shows that beyond digital transformation and tech policy discussions, traditional public safety issues remain a top priority for local governments. In the tech sector, while Australia and New Zealand, as part of the Asia-Pacific economic system, are not directly participating in the U.S. "Super Intelligence" naming campaign, their domestic tech supply chains and cybersecurity environments are inevitably influenced by global trends.

As the U.S. pushes for changes in tech terminology and security review standards, Oceania nations may need to re-evaluate their policy alignment and cybersecurity frameworks when collaborating with international tech giants in the future to cope with an increasingly complex transnational tech competition environment.

There are differing views on the "Super Intelligence" rebranding policy. Supporters believe it helps clarify the stages of technological development and provides a clearer scope for policy formulation. However, critics and industry analysts worry that forcing a change in common industry terminology could lead to surging administrative costs and create confusion in international cooperation. Furthermore, while the AI safety agreements signed between the Trump administration and tech giants like OpenAI have introduced external independent audit mechanisms, the enforceability of these agreements and their influence on global tech standards remain to be seen.

Current information suggests that there is still high uncertainty regarding whether this U.S.-initiated linguistic revolution will evolve into a global standard and what its impact will be on the technological sovereignty of various countries.

Future observations should focus on: first, the specific procedures for U.S. federal agencies to implement the "Super Intelligence" policy and whether it triggers follow-up or opposition from other countries; second, how semiconductor leaders like TSMC will balance production capacity with cybersecurity risks brought by geopolitics amid the continued expansion of HPC demand; and third, whether Taiwan and Oceania countries will further strengthen regional tech security cooperation mechanisms in response to state-sponsored hacker threats. Additionally, as AI safety agreements are implemented, whether tech giants adjust their R&D and compliance strategies in response to the executive order will be a key indicator for assessing the impact of this policy wave.