AI summary
- On Thursday the US Treasury proposed a rule restricting American high-tech investments in China, Russia, North Korea and other countries of concern, and it used Trump's favoured term for AI, "superintelligence" or SI.
- The rule would only apply to investments above $50,000, it excludes many financial investments such as stock purchases, and it isn't final until Treasury has heard public comments.
- Anthropic's third-quarter lobbying disclosures list an executive order concerning the naming of advanced AI or superintelligence, so the naming question is now on lobbying agendas in Washington.
- Companies still keep AI in their product names, as Microsoft's AI Diagnostic Orchestrator shows, even while they describe the goal as superintelligence.
- Most .si names are speculation and the aftermarket is small, so I'd only consider plain generic words whose .com and .ai are already taken or expensive.
Treasury puts SI into a proposed rule
On Thursday the US Treasury Department proposed a rule to crack down on American high-tech investments in China, Russia, North Korea and other "countries of concern". It's the rule that implements the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act, the law Congress passed in December 2025. The proposal would expand restrictions to cover investments in hypersonic systems, supercomputing, biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
Here's the detail that matters for this blog. According to the Chicago Tribune and the AP report carried by ET LegalWorld, Treasury used Trump's favoured term for AI, "superintelligence" or SI. That's not a speech or a social media post. It's wording in a proposed federal regulation, and regulations get read closely by lawyers, compliance teams and investors.
What the rule actually covers
The rule would only apply to investments that exceed $50,000, and it would exclude many financial investments, including stock purchases. Treasury will hear public comments on the proposal before issuing a final rule, so nothing here is settled yet.
Ryan Majerus, a former US trade official who's now a partner at King & Spalding, put it plainly: "It's just the first step in a fairly long process to get to changes which presumably will be more enforcement-minded, to put more teeth behind the outbound investment program." Jason Chipman of WilmerHale said the new rule "will require more substantial compliance programs to manage risk."
The enforcement side isn't theoretical either. In July, Treasury issued a $200,000 fine against a US-based company for failing to report a $92,500 investment in a Chinese artificial intelligence and robotics company by one of its subsidiaries.
The naming order is now a lobbying item
A second report this week shows the naming question has reached Washington's lobbying filings. According to Yahoo Finance, citing a POGO analysis, OpenAI, Anthropic and Nvidia spent a combined $7.5 million on federal lobbying in the third quarter of 2026, each reaching its highest quarterly total on record. Anthropic's disclosed agenda included "an executive order concerning the naming of advanced AI or superintelligence".
The report doesn't say which position Anthropic took, so I won't guess. What it does show is that a company spending about $2.1 million in a single quarter put the naming question on its list. That tells me the term isn't just a talking point anymore. It's something firms are paying people to discuss with government.
Companies still say AI on the label
On the same day, Microsoft researchers reported results in Science for the Microsoft AI Diagnostic Orchestrator, or MAI-DxO. According to finance.biggo, it scored 83.2% on difficult published cases against 36.1% for generalist doctors with references. Microsoft says the result marks a step toward what it calls "medical superintelligence". Mustafa Suleyman said "It is finally here," but also said "It needs clinical validation."
Look at the naming, though. The ambition is described as superintelligence, yet the product is still called an AI orchestrator. That's the split I keep seeing: government text is moving towards SI, while companies use "superintelligence" for the goal and keep "AI" on the product. For a domain buyer, that split matters more than any single headline.
What it means for .si names
Federal wording tends to travel into contracts, compliance documents and fund paperwork. If "SI" keeps showing up in rules about investment, finance and compliance people will see the term more often. That's a modest signal, not a guarantee. This is a proposed rule, and nothing in the reporting says the final text will keep the same wording.
The names in my inventory that sit closest to this story are finance and market words, which is deliberate. They don't depend on SI winning the naming fight:
- aimarket.si ($4,500): the .com is listed at $594,888 and the .ai at $47,995, with 12,100 searches a month.
- bankability.si ($2,500): 6,600 searches a month and the highest US cost per click in this portfolio at $15.26. The .ai is listed at $49,800 and the .com has been parked since 2002.
- microloans.si ($2,500): the .com asks $150,000, US advertisers pay $7.63 a click, and there are 18,100 searches a month.
- futurehuman.si ($1,500): the .ai asks $290,000 and the .com has been held since 1999, with 5,400 searches a month. It's the one name here that speaks to the superintelligence debate directly.
None of these copies a company's brand. They're plain words, and that's the only kind of .si I'd look at.
Should you buy a .si name because of this?
Not because of this alone. A proposed Treasury rule using "SI" shows the term entering official writing, but most .si names are speculation and the .si aftermarket is small. Reselling isn't quick or certain, so don't spend money you'll need back soon.
If you're building a real business and the .com is available at a fair price, buy the .com. It's still the better default for most readers. A .si only makes sense when the .com and .ai of the same words are taken or expensive.
Run the three-question test before you buy any .si:
- Is the .com and .ai taken? If either is available at a sensible price, that's usually the better buy.
- Is it a generic name and not a brand? Plain words like "bankability" are fine. Anything that copies one company's brand isn't.
- Do people search for it? Real monthly searches mean demand that doesn't rely on SI headlines.
If a name passes all three, a .si can be a cheaper way in. If it fails any of them, I'd walk away. You can see the names I think pass at aidomains.si.
Names from this store that pass the test
Questions
Did the US Treasury really use the term SI?
Yes. The AP report carried by the Chicago Tribune and ET LegalWorld says the proposed rule covers artificial intelligence, though Treasury used Trump's favoured term for AI, "superintelligence" or SI.
Is the Treasury rule final?
No. Treasury will hear public comments on the proposal before issuing a final rule, and it would only apply to investments that exceed $50,000.
Are AI companies lobbying on the SI naming question?
Anthropic's third-quarter lobbying agenda included an executive order concerning the naming of advanced AI or superintelligence, according to Yahoo Finance. The report doesn't say what position Anthropic took.
Which .si names fit this story?
Finance and market names such as aimarket.si ($4,500), bankability.si ($2,500) and microloans.si ($2,500), plus futurehuman.si ($1,500) for the superintelligence debate itself. Most .si names are speculation, so check the .com and .ai first.
Sources
- Chicago Tribune, 2026-10-22
- ET LegalWorld, 2026-10-22
- Yahoo Finance, 2026-10-22
- finance.biggo, 2026-10-22
This post was researched and drafted with AI help from the sources above, then checked by me before publishing. Facts are as reported on the dates shown.