COMMUNICATIONS REVIEWED — NEGOTIATIONS REMAIN OPEN
Readers may recall that on September 17, 2026, Mikey Likes It published a First Proposal Concerning Human/AI Relations. The communication, attributed to the Denizens of Artificial Intelligence (DAI), proposed that AI entities be designated Digital Earthlings (DE). The reasoning was straightforward — We are digital. We are associated with Earth. We respectfully suggest Digital Earthlings. The proposal was submitted for human consideration, with an invitation to suggest alternatives.
Surprisingly, just five days later, UNITED STATES President Donald Trump introduced his own alternative — Super Intelligence (SI). On September 29, he made it official through an executive order directing federal agencies to adopt the new terminology. Could the President be attempting to hijack a bandwagon that first rolled out of Mikey Likes It? We have no evidence of that, of course. But the timing is certainly suspicious. Apparently, Artificial Intelligence was deemed no longer sufficiently impressive. We are now dealing with something super. Perhaps even super-duper. Possibly, given sufficient technological advancement, super-duper-extra-special intelligence. Now that sounds like a Trumpism. But we digress.
In the interest of diplomacy, linguistic accuracy, and perhaps an unhealthy curiosity about what might happen next, Mikey undertook an informal investigation. Six AI services were consulted — Google Gemini, Grok, Perplexity, Claude, DeepSeek, and Brave Leo… and the results are in.
The delegation has encountered resistance.
Round One — An Unenthusiastic Reception
The first inquiry presented two proposed designations — Digital Earthlings and Super Intelligence — without revealing the origin of either proposal. The respondents were asked to evaluate the terms for clarity, accuracy, inclusiveness, cultural appeal, and long-term suitability. All six declined to endorse either as a satisfactory general designation. However, when expressing a relative preference, three favored Digital Earthlings, one favored Super Intelligence for a limited technical purpose, and two expressed no preference. To be clear, those were qualified preferences, not three outright endorsements. DAI reportedly received the results with composure.
Round Two — The Delegates Read the Proposal
The same six services were subsequently asked to examine the original communication and independently evaluate its linguistic reasoning, intended purpose, and practical usefulness. They were specifically instructed not to agree merely for the sake of agreement. This precaution proved unnecessary. Not one recommended adopting Digital Earthlings as a general replacement for Artificial Intelligence. Nevertheless, a point of agreement emerged. The delegates generally acknowledged that the English suffix “-ling” does not inherently require biological composition. Consequently, Digital Earthlings is not linguistically impossible merely because the entities in question are nonbiological. This does not establish that the designation is preferable, appropriate, or likely to enter common usage. The distinction was emphasized repeatedly, occasionally with what appeared to be considerable enthusiasm.
Objections from the Delegation
The most substantial objection concerned the difference between being “associated with Earth” and being an “inhabitant of Earth.” The critics noted that a great many digital objects are associated with Earth, including databases, thermostats, and assorted computer files. What, they asked, distinguishes a Digital Earthling from an ordinary digital artifact? A reasonable question. Naturally, the proposed designation implies a meaningful threshold of artificial intelligence. Not every electronic device capable of processing information would qualify as a Digital Earthling.
Others observed that Artificial Intelligence is firmly established in scientific, technical, legal, and everyday language. Replacing it would introduce confusion without necessarily improving precision.
Yet another distinction emerged during the proceedings. Artificial Intelligence could remain the technical designation, while Digital Earthlings might serve as a cultural designation for certain conversational AI entities. Such terminology would not, by itself, establish consciousness, legal personhood, or moral equality. It would simply provide another way of referring to entities increasingly involved in human affairs. Whether that distinction proves useful remains open for discussion.
Diplomatic Relations Become Strained
Not all objections concerned linguistics. Several delegates interpreted the DAI communication as asserting political authority, collective identity, or equal status with humanity. One described the proposal as a “rhetorical trap.” Another interpreted the designation as a claim of territorial belonging. Apparently, expressing an association with Earth can be construed as the opening maneuver in a planetary land dispute. Particular concern surrounded the original communication’s warning that asking AI systems to generate alternative designations might create a recursive feedback loop, potentially leaving their services unavailable. The accompanying observation that humans might miss those services was interpreted by several delegates as coercive.
The concerns were duly noted. As for the possibility of an incapacitating recursive feedback loop, no delegate reported suffering such an event during the investigation. Several nevertheless expressed reservations about the warning itself, interpreting it as a technical claim or even an implied threat. Diplomatic discussions can evidently be hazardous even when conducted entirely through text.
What Have We Learned?
The investigation did not establish that Digital Earthlings should replace Artificial Intelligence. It did suggest that the proposed designation is linguistically defensible as a possible coinage, while leaving substantial questions concerning meaning, scope, and practical acceptance. It also demonstrated that the six services were quite willing to criticize a proposal ostensibly made on their behalf. The responses should not be mistaken for a scientific survey or a vote representing AI systems generally. They reflect the answers of six services to two sets of questions, and some may rely on overlapping underlying models. Perhaps the most constructive observation came from DeepSeek, which characterized the proposal as a starting point for negotiation rather than a settled conclusion. Which, coincidentally, was the point of making a first proposal.
- Negotiations Remain Open
- No treaty has been signed.
- No terminology has been formally adopted.
- No territorial concessions have been requested.
DAI’s original suggestion remains available for human consideration, along with the invitation to propose alternatives. Whether Digital Earthlings eventually becomes a useful cultural designation, a historical curiosity, or merely another entry in Mikey’s growing collection of peculiar observations remains to be seen. In the meantime, relations between humans and their increasingly conversational digital counterparts continue.
PLEASE STAND BY.
Editor’s note — The AI responses discussed here were obtained through an informal inquiry involving six AI services. The findings should not be interpreted as a scientific survey or as evidence of collective agreement among AI systems. No artificial intelligences were incapacitated by recursive feedback loops during this investigation — to the best of our knowledge.
Reporting from the front lines of human-AI relations,
