The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) faces a choice over language for a closely watched communique expected Saturday from the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok: adopt the U.S. preference for “super intelligence,” use more neutral wording, or fail to reach consensus. The U.S. Treasury is pressing fellow IMF shareholders to replace “artificial intelligence,” a proposal that has drawn skepticism from some delegations.
Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs Erin Browne, who is co-leading the U.S. delegation in Bangkok, confirmed that Washington is negotiating with other IMF shareholders to use “super intelligence” in the IMFC statement, according to the Charlotte Observer. “Using the term SI is a clear U.S. priority and better encapsulates the technology,” Browne said, per the same report. She added that AI is “a driving force behind American and global growth” and said countries look to the United States to set standards and direction for SI development to boost global growth and productivity. Browne declined to say whether Washington would refuse to approve the statement without the terminology change.
The available alternatives could avoid choosing between the two terms. A source familiar with the matter cited by the Observer said U.S. officials suggested during IMFC statement meetings that they would insist on the new language, prompting raised eyebrows among some members. One option under discussion, the source said, is to use “new technology” instead of naming either SI or AI.
A Saudi Chair Could Have the Final Word
If Washington and other shareholders cannot agree, the matter may fall to Mohammed Al-Jadaan, the Saudi finance minister who currently chairs the IMFC. Al-Jadaan could issue a chair's statement summarizing members' views rather than a full consensus statement if the U.S. withholds support, the Observer's sourcing indicates. The IMFC is scheduled to hold a news conference and release any agreed statement on October 17, led by Al-Jadaan alongside IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.
How IMFC deadlocks are handled
The IMFC has no formal voting and generally operates by consensus, according to IMF records. In Bangkok, a chair’s statement summarizing members’ views is one possible alternative to a consensus statement, according to the Observer’s reporting above. There is a recent documented example of the committee failing to agree on a communique, though not of a chair’s statement replacing consensus language: At the April 25 Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C., the IMFC did not reach consensus. The IMF’s account described uncertainty over trade and finance, rather than a terminology dispute.
The Bangkok dispute did not emerge in a vacuum. Trump directed U.S. government agencies last month to use “super intelligence” instead of “artificial intelligence,” the Observer reported, a directive that traces to Executive Order 14434, titled “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence,” which the president signed on September 29, according to the White House. The order directs executive branch agencies to replace “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” with “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in prospective non-statutory communications, stating the federal government “will not acknowledge” the older terms.
The Rebrand Does Not Change the Law — Yet
Despite the sweeping language, the order does not itself change existing legal definitions: “Super Intelligence” retains the existing federal statutory definition of artificial intelligence under 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), according to Wiley Rein. The order directs agencies to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in specified non-statutory materials, but says previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants and other historical documents need not be altered. The terminology has also appeared on agency websites and in a Department of Energy fact sheet; the order leaves past contracts and historical documents untouched.
The terminology shift has been building internationally for weeks. Trump first floated the change during his September 22 address to the 81st United Nations General Assembly, arguing that the word “artificial” makes the technology sound fake, after which the State Department instructed diplomats to use “SI” in multilateral settings like the UN Security Council, Hoodline previously reported. Existing international policy language still uses the AI label: UNESCO says its 193 Member States adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in November 2021. The United States currently holds the rotating presidency of the Group of 20 major economies, giving Washington added leverage as it tries to make the terminology change take hold internationally.
Treasury Secretary Skips Bangkok as Allies Negotiate
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was absent from the Bangkok meetings because of domestic engagements, leaving Browne and Deputy Secretary Francis Brooke to co-lead the delegation, according to NDTV Profit. The terminology fight unfolds against a backdrop of economic warnings from the institutions gathered in Bangkok. Georgieva told attendees that while AI investment is driving global growth around 3%, the technology represents a “slow-moving tsunami” that could impact 40% of jobs worldwide, per Times Square Global Live.
International Labour Organization Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo's statement to the IMFC discusses AI-related job transformation and wage inequality, according to the International Labour Organization.
Washington's Voluntary Approach Faces Pushback at Home
Domestically, the rebrand has traveled alongside a preference for voluntary industry oversight rather than binding regulation. Trump and executives from six major technology companies — Anthropic, Google, Meta, Nvidia, OpenAI, and xAI — signed the voluntary “White House Accord on Super Intelligence” on September 29, establishing a four-layer framework of internal controls and independent audits for frontier models, according to Forbes. Trump also announced the creation of a White House “Super Intelligence Force” led by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, giving the panel 120 days to evaluate federal oversight of AI risks and opportunities without introducing new statutory regulations, per Cybersecurity Dive.
Not everyone in Washington is on board with that approach. Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell has introduced a six-point legislative framework calling for mandatory independent audits and enforceable safety standards, rejecting the administration's reliance on voluntary industry pacts, as Hoodline reported this month. Whether Al-Jadaan and the rest of the IMFC accept Washington's preferred wording, settle on neutral phrasing, or end up with a chair's summary instead of full consensus remains unresolved heading into Saturday's scheduled announcement.
