The White House convened a gathering of top AI executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, to sign a non-binding AI safety pledge that President Donald Trump described as “morally binding.” Concurrently, Trump issued an executive order rebranding artificial intelligence as “super intelligence,” signaling a government effort to reshape the public perception of AI amid widespread concerns about its risks. While many viewed the safety pact skeptically due to its voluntary and non-enforceable nature, the meeting underscored a political push to frame AI as a less threatening but transformative technology.

This rebranding of AI to “super intelligence” was seen by commentators as a strategic move to shift the narrative from fear to opportunity, positioning the technology as beneficial and essential rather than dangerous. However, skepticism remains about the pact’s real impact, especially since its quick assembly led to notable mistakes, such as a misspelling of “United States” on the document. Industry insiders continued to debate whether this show of unity among tech giants would translate into meaningful safety reforms or merely serve as political theater in the face of calls for serious regulation.

In related developments, President Trump announced the creation of a Super Intelligence Force led by national intelligence director Jay Clayton. This new task force is poised to coordinate federal efforts around AI technology and is tasked with delivering a report in 120 days on the risks and opportunities presented by “super intelligence.” Clayton emphasized the importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in this space while balancing innovation with safety concerns, reinforcing the administration’s dual focus on competitiveness and cautious oversight.

Amid this political and regulatory activity, concerns persist within the AI community about the internal culture at major AI companies. David Robinson, a long-time safety expert at OpenAI, resigned recently citing a “broken” culture that inadequately addresses the risks of ever-more-capable AI systems. His departure highlights ongoing challenges around aligning AI development with human values and safety, suggesting that beyond symbolic agreements and rebranding efforts, the industry may need deeper systemic changes to prevent dangerous failures in the future.