The term “artificial intelligence” entered the technical world in 1955, when John McCarthy used it in the Dartmouth summer-research proposal (the workshop itself followed in 1956) to mark off a new field from earlier work on automata and “thinking machines.” 70 years later, a push to swap AI for SI—“super intelligence”—treats the original adjective as a branding problem rather than a description of something humans built. I think the impulse is understandable: “artificial” can sound cheap or unreal. But the rename collides with a term researchers have used for decades to mean a still-hypothetical intellect that would outperform humans across almost every domain. Relabeling today’s systems does not change what they can do, and it muddies a useful distinction. Names shape how people talk about a technology; they do not rewrite its history or its limits. The Dartmouth coinage stuck because it named an ambition. A political rebrand will stick only if it names the thing we actually have.