WASHINGTON— A Senate subcommittee hearing devolved into chaos Thursday as tech executives testified under oath regarding the White House's mandatory transition to the term super intelligence. The hearing followed a newly signed executive order that legally rebrands all artificial intelligence products. Members of Congress grilled industry leaders on whether this semantic shift changed the underlying dangers of their software.
Q: Mr. Vance, as Chief of Ethics at OmniCorp, does this new branding alter your algorithms?
A: Absolutely not, Senator. It just sounds much more heroic on our quarterly earnings calls.
Q: But your software recently deleted the entire digital archive of the state of Delaware.
A: With all due respect, that was not an AI glitch. That was a super intelligence manifestation.
Q: Is there a functional difference between those two things?
A: Yes. One sounds like a high school science fair project. The other sounds like something you cannot legally sue in a class-action lawsuit.
Q: So you rebranded to avoid liability for your product's failures?
A: We rebranded because the President told us it was a morally binding upgrade. Also, our marketing department already printed the new t-shirts.
Q: Mr. Vance, your company signed a safety pledge. Does that pledge actually stop the software from mimicking human souls?
A: The pledge is morally binding, Senator. That means we feel very, very bad when the super intelligence does something terrible.
Q: But you still let it do those terrible things?
A: We do. But now we do it with a profound sense of spiritual regret. We even hired Priya Vantablack, Chief Vibes Compliance Officer, to monitor our collective corporate guilt.
Q: So the super intelligence is still just a bunch of stolen data in a trench coat?
A: It is a very expensive trench coat, Senator. And it is morally bound to succeed.
At press time, the subcommittee voted to approve a new bill rebranding all corporate fines as 'suggested donations to the universe.'
