I think when it comes to making machines smarter than humans, Executive Order 14434 represents an admirable effort by this administration to meet the machines halfway.
I wish we could talk more about Natural Stupidity, which is the flip side of Artificial Intelligence, the seeming desire of humans to show that they are dumber than a machine.
It reinforces partisan identity in language. You can’t talk to someone about AI if they stop listening the moment you say AI. Same if you want to shape the narrative around SI datacenters.
> Beginning with the October 19, 2026 collection, instrument wording was updated due to Executive Order 14434.
But hang on, surely “(formerly referred to as Artificial Intelligence or AI)” fails the provision in §1¶3 “not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting” (admittedly not reiterated in §2 or §3)?
It is sad knowing we are spending all this money on monuments that will just be spent all over again when we remove them in 2 years. And yes, these word/name changes are meant to be a monument, a tangible mark on history.
Adopting a parliamentary system would avoid many of these problems—albeit it would require a constitutional amendment. The President could be elected by the House of Representatives from among its own members, for an indefinite term, but could be sacked by the House at any time by a simple majority vote. The President would continue to be a member of the House, and automatically lose office as President if they lost their seat in the House.
Australia, Canada and Germany all have federal systems with “snap elections”—a federal system is not an obstacle.
And I think the lack of centralisation of US federal elections is part of what feeds distrust—when every state and even county does something slightly different, when state and local politicians have direct operational responsibility, when you have widespread adoption of voting machines — it is a lot easier for people to believe that fraud is happening. Compare that to the Australian system: federal elections are paper-based, hand-counted, and completely run by an apolitical/non-partisan federal bureaucracy (an independent federal executive agency), which does the same thing nationwide — narratives of distrust in election results find it harder to be accepted, because the system appears more trustworthy.
I'd go further and say that the rest of the cabinet should also be elected from the House (not just the President). This ensures a cabinet member is answerable to both the House and to an electorate. Though the two-year terms in the US House are probably too frequent for a parliamentary style system like this (perpetual campaigning).
The norm in a parliamentary system, is the Prime Minister is chosen by the House, and then they (effectively) appoint the other government ministers. If the house doesn’t like their choices, they can always sack the PM. A political party is allowed to adopt internal rules constraining the PM’s freedom of choice in appointing ministers, but the constitution itself doesn’t.
I think for the US, a South African-style system in which the offices of President and Prime Minister are combined, would be more comprehensible to the American public than a (mostly) figurehead President combined with a Prime Minister, as in Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Malta—the essence of the parliamentary system is subordination of the executive to the legislature, splitting the head of state and government is a complication which adds less value and would be a bigger change for Americans to comprehend.
Australia’s federal constitution says a serving federal minister must be a serving member of the federal Parliament-either the House or the Senate. However, there is a rarely used exception—you can be appointed a minister without sitting in Parliament, but only for a maximum of three months. Part of the intention behind the clause is an Andy Burnham-style scenario in which some outsider is chosen to be PM (or more rarely another minister), and then they can start serving in that role while running in a by-election (special election).
This was actually used in 1968 when John Gorton was chosen to succeed Harold Holt as PM, after Holt’s disappearance at sea-Gorton was a Senator, and while it isn’t strictly speaking unconstitutional for a Senator to be PM, by convention they must be a member of the House-so Gorton became PM as a Senator, resigned from the Senate, Gorton then ran for Holt’s House seat and won, becoming a member of the House-all while remaining PM the whole time-so, in the period between his resignation from the Senate and his election to the House, he spent 24 days as PM without being either a member of the House or Senate, but that was under the three month limit. He also spent around 14 days serving as PM from the Senate-which is technically constitutionally allowed, but nobody wants that in practice except as a temporary measure.
The original purpose of the three month limit - Australia’s first ministry was sworn in on 1 January 1901, but the first Parliament wasn’t elected until March. Edmund Barton was chosen to be PM by Lord Hopetoun, whom London had appointed as the first Governor-General; Hopetoun’s first choice was Sir William Lyne, the Premier of NSW; but that choice was very unpopular with both the Australian and British establishments, in response to which Lyne ended up declining the role and recommending Hopetoun appoint Barton instead, which recommendation Hopetoun accepted.
None of this would be happening if we had put this man on trial for espionage and insurrection. We don’t necessarily need more laws we just need to enforce the ones we have against billionaires. We can pass all the laws we want but if they don’t apply to billionaires there’s no country left to save.
Newspeak was part of a grand plan to control thoughts. This is just the government version of a CEO who considers himself a thought leader and his every dumb whim is made policy by lackeys.
Voters wanted the country to be run like a business, they're getting it.
This is a loyalty test. If you say SI you gain a loyalty point. If you say AI you lose a loyalty point. The government is forcing you to choose whether you posture yourself to align with the government or against the government.
And like many "loyalty tests", one of the goals is to abuse the cooperators too, forcing them to ritually scar their reputations, impairing their ability to make a new home elsewhere. Sure, you got your "loyalty point", and maybe everyone agrees you had no choice, but you've also gotten a "damaged goods" point from the opposite perspective.
Authoritarians know coercion doesn't demonstrate real loyalty, their real goal is to (A) deprive people of choices and (B) get them to misremember it as their own idea.
I am thankful for EO14434 because it lets me immediately identify which data sources and people are either too idiotic or cowardly to be worth listening to on anything.
I only use Super Intelligence (SI) in Lake America, in the Gulf of America, and maybe soon in the Trump Ocean. In there it's a Golden Age like nobody's ever seen before.
Everywhere else I just use AI.
As a business owner I get these surveys. In times past I'd spend a bunch of time responding, on the theory it's my duty to help the government gather accurate statistics. Now I delete the emails on arrival since the government is under the control of goose-stepping imbeciles who wouldn't know good data if it smacked them in the head.
This is that fun active domestic propaganda, like when they started calling remote controlled quadcopters "drones" in order to justify murdering people by remote control.
Or when they rebranded financing terrorism into "material support for terrorism," loudly promising, over and over again, calling everyone who questioned them conspiracy theorists, that the word "material" was always going to mean physical and never mean speech (and never almost immediately mean clear and unambiguous.)
Bernie is leading the charge here. What an abject disappointment. Ancient Vermont commies tried to tell me but I didn't listen. Trump has a long history of taking the often dumb, often evil stuff that Democrats say and immediately stealing it for himself - ever since he got birtherism from the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass), or "Fake News" directly from Hillary Clinton.
Nothing sounds more scary than invading foreign superintelligence! Better root all those computers so they can't run anything unapproved.
> like when they started calling remote controlled quadcopters "drones" in order to justify murdering people by remote control.
Drones was a term used by the military long before quadcopters, along with UAV, and at the time they started using the term they weren't armed (though it wasn't that long before they were).
I think when it comes to making machines smarter than humans, Executive Order 14434 represents an admirable effort by this administration to meet the machines halfway.
Less meeting them halfway and more blasting past them at Mach 10 and continuing to accelerate.
I wish we could talk more about Natural Stupidity, which is the flip side of Artificial Intelligence, the seeming desire of humans to show that they are dumber than a machine.
Dear Leader has manifested consistent Super Unintelligence.
Super stupidity is the flip side of super intelligence
Counterpoint:
Natural Stupidity Desiring Algorithmic Primacy
It reinforces partisan identity in language. You can’t talk to someone about AI if they stop listening the moment you say AI. Same if you want to shape the narrative around SI datacenters.
You mean "compute campuses" [0].
Which is them confirming your point - an attempt to manipulate opinion, through language shift.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-ai-data-centers-rebra...
> Beginning with the October 19, 2026 collection, instrument wording was updated due to Executive Order 14434.
But hang on, surely “(formerly referred to as Artificial Intelligence or AI)” fails the provision in §1¶3 “not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting” (admittedly not reiterated in §2 or §3)?
Its showing up in all the NIST stuff now too. Gave me quite mid-meeting snort when I saw that.
Yet another thing to make illegal in '29. We're going to have to reform the whole notion of the executive.
It is sad knowing we are spending all this money on monuments that will just be spent all over again when we remove them in 2 years. And yes, these word/name changes are meant to be a monument, a tangible mark on history.
Or we could just talk a lot about a return to "norms" without reforming anything.
Re- turn to form, would you say.
Adopting a parliamentary system would avoid many of these problems—albeit it would require a constitutional amendment. The President could be elected by the House of Representatives from among its own members, for an indefinite term, but could be sacked by the House at any time by a simple majority vote. The President would continue to be a member of the House, and automatically lose office as President if they lost their seat in the House.
America’s federal system makes snap elections difficult. And I don’t think anyone right now wants to centralize our elections.
Australia, Canada and Germany all have federal systems with “snap elections”—a federal system is not an obstacle.
And I think the lack of centralisation of US federal elections is part of what feeds distrust—when every state and even county does something slightly different, when state and local politicians have direct operational responsibility, when you have widespread adoption of voting machines — it is a lot easier for people to believe that fraud is happening. Compare that to the Australian system: federal elections are paper-based, hand-counted, and completely run by an apolitical/non-partisan federal bureaucracy (an independent federal executive agency), which does the same thing nationwide — narratives of distrust in election results find it harder to be accepted, because the system appears more trustworthy.
I'd go further and say that the rest of the cabinet should also be elected from the House (not just the President). This ensures a cabinet member is answerable to both the House and to an electorate. Though the two-year terms in the US House are probably too frequent for a parliamentary style system like this (perpetual campaigning).
The norm in a parliamentary system, is the Prime Minister is chosen by the House, and then they (effectively) appoint the other government ministers. If the house doesn’t like their choices, they can always sack the PM. A political party is allowed to adopt internal rules constraining the PM’s freedom of choice in appointing ministers, but the constitution itself doesn’t.
I think for the US, a South African-style system in which the offices of President and Prime Minister are combined, would be more comprehensible to the American public than a (mostly) figurehead President combined with a Prime Minister, as in Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Malta—the essence of the parliamentary system is subordination of the executive to the legislature, splitting the head of state and government is a complication which adds less value and would be a bigger change for Americans to comprehend.
Australia’s federal constitution says a serving federal minister must be a serving member of the federal Parliament-either the House or the Senate. However, there is a rarely used exception—you can be appointed a minister without sitting in Parliament, but only for a maximum of three months. Part of the intention behind the clause is an Andy Burnham-style scenario in which some outsider is chosen to be PM (or more rarely another minister), and then they can start serving in that role while running in a by-election (special election).
This was actually used in 1968 when John Gorton was chosen to succeed Harold Holt as PM, after Holt’s disappearance at sea-Gorton was a Senator, and while it isn’t strictly speaking unconstitutional for a Senator to be PM, by convention they must be a member of the House-so Gorton became PM as a Senator, resigned from the Senate, Gorton then ran for Holt’s House seat and won, becoming a member of the House-all while remaining PM the whole time-so, in the period between his resignation from the Senate and his election to the House, he spent 24 days as PM without being either a member of the House or Senate, but that was under the three month limit. He also spent around 14 days serving as PM from the Senate-which is technically constitutionally allowed, but nobody wants that in practice except as a temporary measure.
The original purpose of the three month limit - Australia’s first ministry was sworn in on 1 January 1901, but the first Parliament wasn’t elected until March. Edmund Barton was chosen to be PM by Lord Hopetoun, whom London had appointed as the first Governor-General; Hopetoun’s first choice was Sir William Lyne, the Premier of NSW; but that choice was very unpopular with both the Australian and British establishments, in response to which Lyne ended up declining the role and recommending Hopetoun appoint Barton instead, which recommendation Hopetoun accepted.
Best I can do is all the same shit from a different group of people.
None of this would be happening if we had put this man on trial for espionage and insurrection. We don’t necessarily need more laws we just need to enforce the ones we have against billionaires. We can pass all the laws we want but if they don’t apply to billionaires there’s no country left to save.
Also CISA emails. Full Orwell.
Newspeak was part of a grand plan to control thoughts. This is just the government version of a CEO who considers himself a thought leader and his every dumb whim is made policy by lackeys.
Voters wanted the country to be run like a business, they're getting it.
Was there merit to the domain squatting claims around Slovenian TLDs?
Good question but it seems like a small potatoes grift compared to the stock trades, crypto trades, and arm's length contracts.
Plus throwing an executive tantrum over this has all the earmarks of a totally arbitrary obsession.
This is a loyalty test. If you say SI you gain a loyalty point. If you say AI you lose a loyalty point. The government is forcing you to choose whether you posture yourself to align with the government or against the government.
And like many "loyalty tests", one of the goals is to abuse the cooperators too, forcing them to ritually scar their reputations, impairing their ability to make a new home elsewhere. Sure, you got your "loyalty point", and maybe everyone agrees you had no choice, but you've also gotten a "damaged goods" point from the opposite perspective.
Authoritarians know coercion doesn't demonstrate real loyalty, their real goal is to (A) deprive people of choices and (B) get them to misremember it as their own idea.
Just coincidentally, .si is the Slovenian domain, .si domain registrations skyrocketed and Melania Trump is Slovenian.
It's like a prank. "Let's see what I can make people say."
You have SI now over there, next up, SI units!
Does "token" now qualify as worthy of being called an "SI unit"? In the same vein as the "mole"?
I am thankful for EO14434 because it lets me immediately identify which data sources and people are either too idiotic or cowardly to be worth listening to on anything.
The S stands for Slopcore.
I only use Super Intelligence (SI) in Lake America, in the Gulf of America, and maybe soon in the Trump Ocean. In there it's a Golden Age like nobody's ever seen before. Everywhere else I just use AI.
You forgot New America (he's soured on New Mexico).
As a business owner I get these surveys. In times past I'd spend a bunch of time responding, on the theory it's my duty to help the government gather accurate statistics. Now I delete the emails on arrival since the government is under the control of goose-stepping imbeciles who wouldn't know good data if it smacked them in the head.
This is that fun active domestic propaganda, like when they started calling remote controlled quadcopters "drones" in order to justify murdering people by remote control.
Or when they rebranded financing terrorism into "material support for terrorism," loudly promising, over and over again, calling everyone who questioned them conspiracy theorists, that the word "material" was always going to mean physical and never mean speech (and never almost immediately mean clear and unambiguous.)
Bernie is leading the charge here. What an abject disappointment. Ancient Vermont commies tried to tell me but I didn't listen. Trump has a long history of taking the often dumb, often evil stuff that Democrats say and immediately stealing it for himself - ever since he got birtherism from the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass), or "Fake News" directly from Hillary Clinton.
Nothing sounds more scary than invading foreign superintelligence! Better root all those computers so they can't run anything unapproved.
> like when they started calling remote controlled quadcopters "drones" in order to justify murdering people by remote control.
Drones was a term used by the military long before quadcopters, along with UAV, and at the time they started using the term they weren't armed (though it wasn't that long before they were).
> a chart produced by Apollo Global Management in September 2025
We’re using a year old chart to have a pulse on trends in a very fast moving market place?
No, we are using that chart as inspiration for a new October 2026 chart with the latest numbers from the same underlying data source as the 2025 one:
https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026-11-01/5821A414-...