Beijing still writes “AI” in its own results list. A November dialogue and an incident channel are now on both calendars.
China’s Foreign Ministry said Saturday it respects Washington’s choice to write “super intelligence” in the U.S. readout of President Xi Jinping’s state visit. It did not put that phrase in China’s own account of what the two sides agreed.
A reporter asked the obvious question. The U.S. paper used one label. Chinese paper used another.
“The two presidents had in-depth discussion on AI during this visit,” the spokesperson said. “On what term to use for artificial intelligence, China attaches importance to the position of the U.S. side and respects their choice of the term. The advancement of artificial intelligence is an ongoing process. Parties can have more communication and in-depth exchange of views to seek consensus in light of how the process may evolve.”
No spokesperson was named. The note went up at 7:06 p.m. Beijing time, dated Sept. 26.
The White House fact sheet from Friday night went further. It said the two leaders “agreed to use the term ‘super intelligence’ rather than ‘artificial intelligence’ to describe the applicable emerging technologies.” It named a “U.S.-China Super Intelligence (SI) Dialogue” and a “bilateral communication channel for SI incidents.” Next exchange: by November 2026.
China’s matching document, also Saturday, keeps the older noun. Item 7 of eight “deliverables and understandings” says the sides “agree on the establishment of the China-U.S. AI Dialogue to exchange views on risks and benefits related to AI. The next exchange will occur in November 2026. China and the U.S. also agree to establish a bilateral communication channel for AI incidents.”
Same month. Same channel. Different name.
That gap will show up in real paper. Model cards, export files, board decks and most engineering tickets still say AI. U.S. government text now says SI. Chinese government text still says AI. The two capitals say they will talk anyway.
Xi used “artificial intelligence” in public on U.S. soil. At the White House arrival ceremony on Sept. 24, he said: “Both China and the United States are leading nations in artificial intelligence. We have both the capability and responsibility to develop and manage AI for good, and ensure that the development of AI is always under human control and serves the well-being of the people.”
The visit ran Sept. 23-25, local time. The eight-point Chinese list also records a $30 billion reciprocal tariff-reduction arrangement, a Board of Trade first chartered in May, and a pledge that each side will back the other’s big meeting — APEC in China, the G20 in the United States. The two presidents intend to attend each other’s gatherings. That puts another leaders’ meeting in November, when China hosts APEC.
Neither text defines an “incident.” Neither names the offices that will pick up the phone. A model leak. A cyber event. A biosecurity scare. A market shock. The documents do not say which of those would trip the line.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had sketched the idea days earlier, after talks in New York with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. He called it a communications line for cases that rise to a national-security level and said the next sitting would likely come in about two months. China’s Saturday list confirms the channel. It does not repeat his extra detail.
For people who ship models or sit on risk committees, the usable facts are few and dated. November is the next official exchange. Until then, U.S. paper and Chinese paper will not match, and neither will match the default vocabulary on most product teams. The ministry’s answer treats that mismatch as something to work through as the systems change. Not as a finished glossary.
The rest of Beijing’s list sits next to the AI line and does not explain it: Iran and waterway tolls, a reminder that the two countries were World War II allies, recent narcotics cases, two giant pandas leased to Zoo Atlanta. The militaries, separately, agreed to finish a memorandum on crisis communication “as soon as possible.”
Saturday’s note is short. It does one job. Beijing will not fight Washington over the American label. It also will not print that label in its own tally of what the presidents signed off on.