TechCrunch is skeptical that 'Super Intelligence' and a non-binding pact can fix AI's image problem

My take: TechCrunch journalists asked something I've also been asking myself: does it actually help to rename AI and ask companies to sign a good-conduct pact, if that pact is "completely voluntary" and "deeply non-binding," as they described it? Their conclusion was that the new name works more as a marketing strategy than as a real safety guarantee.

I think that's an honest and useful thing to point out: a new name or a promise with no consequences doesn't change anything about how a company actually builds or deploys its technology. What does change things, for anyone working with AI every day, is each company's real internal policy: what controls it has, what audits it runs, and what happens when something goes wrong. That's what you should be asking to see, not whatever name is trending.

If you're a business owner or you use third-party AI tools at work, the underlying question is the same one as always: are you choosing your tools based on their real safety and privacy policies, or on how good their marketing sounds?