本周，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普会见了人工智能领域的众多巨头人物——部分原因是为了宣布美国政府不再将其称为“人工智能”，现在它被称为“超级智能”。

在最新一期 TechCrunch 的 Equity 播客节目中，Kirsten Korosec、Sean O’Kane 和我讨论了此次会晤背后的动机及其可能对人工智能行业产生的影响。我们都对高管们签署的《前沿责任联合承诺》（Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities）能产生多大实效持怀疑态度，尤其是因为——正如 Sean 所指出的——从法律角度来看，它“毫无约束力”。（相反，特朗普称他认为它具有“道德约束力”。）

Kirsten 认为，此次会晤的真正意义可能在于“围绕人工智能的品牌重塑”。（这一努力在本周末随着特朗普宣布成立新的超级智能部队而得以延续。）对她而言，核心信息是：“人工智能会杀死我们，它很可怕，它会夺走工作——但超级智能不会。”

请继续阅读我们对话的预览，内容已进行删减和润色以增强长度和清晰度。

Anthony Ha：正式地，根据美国总统的命令，它不再叫人工智能，而是超级智能。我们上周就在讨论这件事，因为这是 [特朗普] 一直在暗示的事情——他从不只是暗示，他已经说了有一阵子了。但现在这已被写入行政命令。如果你是美国官方代表，你应该说超级智能，而不是人工智能。

这也是更广泛的人工智能安全公告的一部分，我认为这不仅令人感兴趣的是所宣布的这一协议，还有其本身得以发生的事实。它似乎是在相当短的时间内凑成的，因为就在两周前、一周前，特朗普总统还说：“我们不需要这些，我们需要在人工智能领域领先，我们不能以任何方式限制它，我们不需要任何监管，任何声称人工智能有危险的人本质上都是中国或民主党的棋子。”然而，本周早些时候，所有这些人工智能首席执行官都与他聚在一起并签署了这一协议。

Kirsten Korosec：在此之前，我们应该指出，不仅存在对监管的反对，我们还可以讨论这项行政命令是否真的做到了这一点——我会说没有，那里有一些表演成分——但重要且有趣的事情是，就在几天前，Anthropic 在幕后与特朗普总统的关系中确实处于“失宠”地位。

这一切在 [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei 受邀参加晚上 10 点的晚餐后发生了改变。他进行了这次会面，然后在几天后，我们有了这次午餐会，在这次午餐会上，几乎所有主要科技公司的权力人物都出席了。所以 Mark Zuckerberg 在那里，Jeff Bezos 在那里，Elon Musk 在那里，Dario 当然也在，他们都在那里。

我想知道你们中是否有人观看了随后举行的新闻发布会，那里有很多很多梗图，因为当你把一群科技首席执行官聚在一起时，会出现有趣、滑稽的行为。

但我对你们俩更大的问题是：这一切意味着什么？它真的意味着什么吗？

Sean O’Kane：你有多少时间？首先，当然，他们吃了晚餐，特朗普和 Dario。如果你阅读特朗普刚刚接受的《时代》杂志采访，你对他对此餐会是否知情程度的猜测和我的一样好，这是一种奇怪的现实，但这就是我们生活的现实。

我还要说另一件让我对政府与Anthropic之间关系修复程度持怀疑态度的事情——意料之中的是，尽管显然有人试图促成这两方合作，但国防部依然坚决认为Anthropic糟糕透顶、充满“觉醒文化”，并构成国家安全风险。看起来Emil Michael每隔几天就会在X平台上抨击Anthropic一次。我认为，尽管Dario出席了这次活动，双方之间仍然存在一定的距离。

至于这份协议及其他相关内容，让我们面对现实吧，他们在所有签署方共同签署的协议中把“United States”（美国）拼错了。而且，该协议本质上毫无约束力。我是说，它完全出于自愿。我觉得其中我最感兴趣的一点是，特朗普将其描述为引号中的“道德上具有约束力”，这是一种我闻所未闻的抽象程度和术语用法。

Anthony：就Anthropic与特朗普政府的关系而言，已有大量报道，特别是在与国防部发生那场大冲突期间，白宫不同部门与Anthropic的关系各不相同。财政部长似乎是Anthropic的忠实粉丝，而国防部——绝对不是粉丝，或者至少对Anthropic试图对其技术使用施加的一些条件感到不满。

从这个意义上说，感觉似乎并没有发生任何实质性变化。白宫中有人希望使用Anthropic的技术，并希望其参与这些决策；而另一些人则非常、非常、非常、非常不愿意。

就协议本身而言，似乎意义不大。真正有意义的是他们觉得这件事值得去做这一事实。正如他们把“United States”拼错所表明的，看起来他们是匆忙将这一切拼凑起来的。[但是] 这种姿态之所以有必要，这一点本身就具有重要意义，即使我认为该协议本身不会导致任何重大变化。

Kirsten：我确实认为发生了一件重要的事情。对我来说，这正是其核心所在，即围绕AI进行的一次品牌重塑。“AI会杀死我们，它很可怕，它会夺走工作，但超级智能不会。”这不是我个人的信念。对我来说，这才是传递的信息。

President Donald Trump hosted many of the biggest names in artificial intelligence this week — in part to announce that the U.S. government isn’t calling it artificial intelligence anymore. Now it’s super intelligence.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast , Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed the motivation behind the meeting and what effect it might have on the AI industry. We were all pretty skeptical that the “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities” that the executives signed will amount to much, especially since — as Sean noted — it’s “deeply non-binding,” at least from a legal prospective. (Instead, Trump said he considers it “morally binding.”)

Kirsten suggested that the meeting’s real significance may have been as “a rebranding effort around AI.” (An effort that continued this weekend with Trump’s announcement of a new Super Intelligence Force .) For her, the big message was, “AI is going to kill us, it’s scary, it is going to take jobs — but super intelligence is not.”

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation , edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Ha: Officially, by order of the president of the United States, it’s not artificial intelligence anymore, it’s super intelligence. We were talking about this last week , because this is something [Trump has] been hinting at — he doesn’t do hints, he’s been saying [it] for a while. But now it’s signed into executive order. If you’re an official U.S. representative, you are supposed to say super intelligence, not artificial intelligence.

And this was also part of this broader announcement around AI safety, which I think is both interesting for this pact that was announced, but also the fact that it happened at all. It seemed to have come together fairly quickly, because just two weeks ago, a week ago, President Trump was saying, “We don’t need any of this, we need to lead in AI, we can’t constrain it in any way, we don’t need any regulation, anyone who’s saying that there’s any danger from AI is essentially a Chinese or Democratic plant.” And yet all these AI CEOs got together with him earlier this week and signed this pact.

Kirsten Korosec: Leading up to that, we should say, not only was there pushback on regulation, and we can talk about whether this executive order even does any of that — I would say no, there’s a little bit of theater there — but the important and interesting thing is that just days ago, Anthropic was really in the doghouse, if you will, in terms of what was happening behind the scenes with President Trump.

That all changed when [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei was invited to a 10 p.m. dinner. He had this sit-down, and then just days later, we had this luncheon, and at this luncheon, we have pretty much every tech power broker from every major tech company that exists. So Mark Zuckerberg was there, Jeff Bezos was there, Elon Musk was there, Dario of course was there, they were all there.

I’m wondering if any of you watched the press conference that happened afterwards, which there’s been many, many memes about, because of the interesting, funny behavior when you bring a bunch of tech CEOs together.

But I guess my bigger question for both of you is: What does this all mean? And does it mean anything?

Sean O’Kane: How much time do you have? First off, sure, they had dinner, Trump and Dario. If you read the Time magazine interview that Trump just did, your guess is as good as mine as to how informed he was that that dinner was even going to be happening, which is a strange reality to live in, but it’s just the one we inhabit.

I will also say one other thing that makes me skeptical — surprise, surprise — of how repaired the relationship is between the administration and Anthropic, is that for as much as there are clearly people trying to put those two groups together, the Defense Department is still very adamant that Anthropic is terrible and woke and and a national security risk. Emil Michael goes off on Anthropic every other day on X, it seems. I think there’s still some distance there despite Dario showing up to this thing.

As far as the agreement and all of that, let’s be real, they misspelled the United States on the agreement that they all signed. It is also just deeply non-binding. I mean, it is completely voluntary. I think my favorite aspect about it was that Trump described it as quote “morally binding,” which is just a level of abstraction and terminology that I’ve never heard of before.

Anthony: In terms of Anthropic and their relationship with the Trump administration, there’s been a sort of a lot of reporting, especially during that big blow up with the Defense Department, that different parts of the White House had different relationships with Anthropic. The Treasury Secretary seemed to be a big fan , whereas the Defense Department — definitely not big fans, or at least unhappy with some of the conditions that Anthropic were trying to put on the use of their technology.

In that sense, it feels like nothing has necessarily changed. There are people in the White House who want to use Anthropic’s technology, want them involved in these decisions, and others who really, really, really, really don’t.

In terms of the agreement, it seems not super meaningful. What is meaningful is just the fact that they felt that this was something worth doing. As indicated by the fact that they misspelled United States, it seemed like they rushed to put all of this together. [But] the fact that this kind of gesture was needed seems significant, even if I don’t think the agreement itself is going to lead to any major changes.

Kirsten: I do think that there was one important thing that happened. And to me, this is the point of it, which was a rebranding exercise around AI. “AI is going to kill us, it’s scary, it is going to take jobs, but super intelligence is not.” This isn’t my personal belief. To me, that was the message.