The Need for a Proper Name for Artificial Intelligence

Unbeknownst to us, “lobsters” have evolved. They swarm from the water into our computers and phones—everyone is starting to raise “lobsters.”

Of course, here, “lobster” refers to “artificial intelligence entities.” In the blink of an eye, we have entered the intelligent era. No matter what you say, you cannot speak without mentioning artificial intelligence. Not only can you not speak without it, but no matter what job you seek or lose, it can be related to artificial intelligence.

A few years ago, people simply thought of artificial intelligence as just another new technology. However, everyone quickly became astonished: this time it is truly different! Artificial intelligence, appearing in the form of technology, is rapidly changing all aspects of society. We are forced to accept the understanding that, unlike previous technologies, artificial intelligence is a social tool, an economic tool, and a technological tool. It fundamentally changes not just the technological level but also deconstructs and reshapes the entire society; it transforms nature as a material means of production and influences humanity as an ideological means, even reshaping its creators—humans themselves. It is undoubtedly a tool shared by the productive forces and production relations, as well as the social and economic foundation and superstructure. Therefore, artificial intelligence is a dual tool for transforming humanity and nature, and our discussion of the name “artificial intelligence” cannot be approached solely from a natural science or technological perspective.

Evidently, the existing term—“artificial intelligence”—is quite inappropriate. Firstly, such a common tool of anthropology and natural science has been given a narrow technical name. More importantly, as a new entity perceived to exist alongside humanity, it should and must have its own “meta-concept.” The term “artificial intelligence” derived from English merely means “man-made human intelligence,” which is not a “meta-concept.”

Moreover, from a Chinese perspective, using “AI” in the Chinese world as the grand name for artificial intelligence directly violates the General Principles of the Chinese Language Law of the People’s Republic of China. The term “artificial intelligence” is merely a direct translation from English, which seriously conflicts with our 5,000 years of Chinese characters. It is evident that we need to give artificial intelligence a proper Chinese name!

Lessons from Improper Naming of New Things

1. Historical Lessons from Improper Naming

Chinese people often say: “If the name is not correct, then the words will not be smooth; if the words are not smooth, then the matter will not succeed.” This is what we commonly refer to as “a name that fits its essence.” Otherwise, systems and orders will lose legitimacy, leading to social disorder.

In social and political aspects, there are numerous experiences and lessons regarding the importance of proper naming.

In history, the political wisdom of “Cao the Chancellor” was superior to that of various “heroes” because he proposed the idea of “using the emperor to command the lords” and “serving the emperor to command the unfaithful.” This became a famous historical strategy.

In 1954, China, India, and Myanmar jointly advocated the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” which was a resistance against colonialism and hegemonism, providing legal and moral grounds for countries in the Global South to voice their opinions and develop cooperatively on the international stage.

The United States also understands the importance of proper naming. Its most famous cases of “manifest destiny” were all wrapped in grand ideological narratives, providing a legitimate facade for expansion and hegemonic actions. These are all historical experiences of “proper naming.”

In the realm of technology and social development, improper naming has brought numerous lessons and even disasters.

The improper naming of the “metaverse” has turned it into a concept bubble that overdraws the future. Tech companies have used this name for an early-stage vision pieced together from virtual reality, social networks, and digital twins. The concept was overly hyped and quickly faded: this grand name sparked unprecedented investment and media frenzy in 2021-2022, but the actual technology was far from mature, hindering the healthy development of incremental innovation.

2. Naming Dilemmas Arising from Issues in English

The inherent issues in the English conceptual system lead to the complexity and irregularity of professional terminology, acting like a “logical bomb” lurking deep within the system, causing chain reactions: from personal cognitive confusion to enormous collaboration costs, potentially evolving into real-world technological disasters that severely hinder subsequent development.

1. Technical Learning Stage: Irregular Naming Disrupts Knowledge System Construction

Example 1: The Parameter Maze in Programming

Confused Naming: For the basic concept of passing data to functions, the mixed usage in different contexts leads to logical confusion. Beginners must spend a lot of effort distinguishing these terms that essentially describe the same or highly related things, rather than understanding the core logic of “data passing.” This disrupts the unity of concepts, turning learning into memorizing “jargon” rather than understanding principles, steepening the learning curve.

Example 2: The Forest of Abbreviations in Biomedicine

Confused Naming: Gene and protein names often consist of obscure abbreviations (e.g., p53, TNF-α) or are arbitrary (like the fruit fly gene “sonic hedgehog”). The same substance has different names in clinical, biochemical, and genetic contexts.

Cognitive Overload: Students and interdisciplinary researchers feel like they are deciphering codes, consuming a lot of cognitive resources on terminology translation rather than concept understanding, severely hindering knowledge transfer and the formation of interdisciplinary thinking.

2. Technical Application Stage: Increased Communication Costs and Technological Disasters

When chaotic terminology enters team collaboration and complex systems, it can lead to inefficiency at best and disasters at worst.

Example: The Historical Burden in Information Technology

Confused Naming: The same concept has different names in different tech stacks. For instance, the “master-slave” architecture in distributed computing was renamed to “primary-replica” and “leader-follower” due to its discriminatory connotations, but the old terminology still exists in legacy code, documentation, and engineers’ thought processes.

This has led to significant difficulties: heavy technical debt. Poor naming is written into core codebases, APIs, and protocols. Modifying them means rewriting countless dependent systems, updating massive documentation, and retraining personnel, with costs so high that they are unbearable, leaving them as “debt” to inherit.

3. Long-term Development: Technical Debt and Innovation Barriers

Poor naming becomes entrenched in infrastructure, shackling long-term development.

Innovation and Collaboration Barriers: When Google’s “Borg” system, Apache’s “Mesos,” and Kubernetes’ “Pod” all describe similar container orchestration concepts, cross-platform collaboration and talent mobility face additional terminology translation and understanding costs, hindering the integration and reinvention of technological ideas.

Ecological Fragmentation: Open-source projects or new technologies often create new terms to describe existing concepts for the sake of “innovation” or historical reasons, leading to ecological fragmentation, forcing developers to relearn essentially the same knowledge under different names.

4. Case Studies of Naming Dilemmas in English

Example from Chemistry and Pharmaceuticals: Triple Naming Systems and Similarity Traps

Drugs typically have:

Chemical names: complex and lengthy, for professionals only.
International Nonproprietary Names: more common but still similar.
Brand names: registered by pharmaceutical companies, driven by marketing, often deliberately memorable, leading to confusion.

This system lays the groundwork for errors.

Example 1: The Fatal Error of Vincristine—Confusion in Administration Routes

Confused Naming and Background: Vincristine and vinblastine are two different chemotherapy drugs with very similar names.

Vincristine: primarily used for leukemia, can only be administered via intravenous injection, strictly prohibited for intrathecal injection.
Vinblastine: can be used for solid tumors, with a different administration route.

Disaster Events: Globally, there have been multiple cases of vincristine being incorrectly injected into patients’ spinal canals due to name confusion. Such errors can lead to irreversible, devastating nerve damage, resulting in patient deaths in extreme pain.

How Naming Leads to Disasters: Doctors issuing prescriptions, pharmacists preparing them, and nurses executing them can easily confuse names due to their high similarity (especially in verbal prescriptions, handwritten notes, or emergency situations). This is not merely a spelling error but a systemic naming defect leading to fatal consequences. This incident directly prompted hospitals worldwide to enforce regulations: vincristine must be diluted by pharmacists and dispensed in small infusion bags, prohibiting any packaging that could be directly used for intrathecal injection.

Example 2: The Origin of the “Tall Man” Lettering Method—Distinguishing Similar-Spelling Drugs

The FDA in the United States promotes the use of mixed case (Tall Man Lettering) to distinguish easily confused drugs, backed by numerous reports of near disasters:

Clonazepam vs. Clozapine
- CLONAZePam: a sedative-hypnotic drug.
- CLOZAPine: an antipsychotic drug.
- Risk: prescribing a sedative as a powerful antipsychotic, or vice versa, could lead to excessive sedation, seizures, or uncontrolled psychiatric symptoms.
Hydromorphone vs. Morphine
- HYDROmorphone: a potent opioid analgesic, 5-7 times more potent than morphine.
- MORPHine: a standard opioid analgesic.
- Risk: mistaking “hydromorphone” for “morphine” and administering the same dose could lead to respiratory depression, coma, or even death.
Ibuprofen vs. Fentanyl
- ibuPROfen: a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
- fentaNYL: a potent opioid analgesic.
- Risk: quickly selecting similar suffixes in electronic prescription systems could lead to catastrophic errors.

Example 3: Insulin—A Field That Appears Regular but is Actually High-Risk

There are many types of insulin, with names combining type, action time, and similar brand names, making errors easy.

NovoRapid vs. Novolin: although from the same company, “Rapid” represents ultra-short-acting, while “lin” represents short-acting or intermediate-acting, with completely different timing for administration.
Lantus vs. Levemir: names are unrelated, but both are basal insulins; confusion with other insulins could lead to daily blood sugar control disruptions.

Disastrous Consequences: Using long-acting insulin instead of short-acting insulin for meals can lead to severe and prolonged hypoglycemic coma; conversely, it can lead to severe hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis.

In summary, improper naming creates a vicious cycle:

Learning Side: Complex and irregular naming → Cognitive load increases, logical framework confuses → Talent cultivation efficiency decreases, professional barriers artificially heightened.
Application Side: Chaotic terminology enters collaboration and systems → Communication costs soar, human error probability increases → In critical fields (aerospace, healthcare, nuclear power), directly triggers technological disasters, causing loss of life and property.
Development Side: Poor naming solidifies into standards and infrastructure → Forms enormous “terminology debt” and ecological fragmentation → System maintenance costs are extremely high, cross-domain collaboration is difficult, and fundamental innovation is hindered.

Therefore, naming new things is a serious system engineering and design philosophy. Especially when it involves meta-concepts, promoting terminology standardization and adhering to the principles of “position over convenience” and “logic over cleverness” in naming from the outset is not only for elegance but also for safety, efficiency, and sustainable innovation. A name that is not correct is not merely a matter of words not flowing smoothly; it is indeed the source of disaster and the beginning of obstacles.

Thus, the most successful naming often accurately reflects the essence of things, manages public expectations, and leaves room for evolution.

Naming “artificial intelligence” is essentially naming “artificial intelligence entities.”

Today, despite the complexity of algorithms and computing power involved in artificial intelligence, it can be described in one sentence: artificial intelligence entities are attempting to become an equal subject alongside humans. The artificial intelligence entity is the subject of the entire field or world of artificial intelligence. Therefore, naming the so-called “artificial intelligence” is a pseudo-problem, while naming “artificial intelligence entities” is the real issue. This is not merely a naming problem. We are not naming an ordinary new thing; we must recognize that this new thing is acquiring superpowers that even humans may find difficult to control.

Principles for Naming Artificial Intelligence

Naming artificial intelligence is a fundamental matter involving anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy. As humans, our basic principle is undoubtedly: artificial intelligence is created by humans, so it must be defined by humans, from the human standpoint—perspective—method, establishing its concept, clarifying its existence premise, and delineating its functional boundaries. In short: only from the human standpoint can we determine the meaning of artificial intelligence’s existence; only humans can be the “meta-concept” of artificial intelligence, which must be a derived concept of this meta-concept of humanity. Thus, from the subjectivity of humans, we find that the essence of artificial intelligence is: “silicon-based systems,” which is “stone” as well.

One Premise and Three Principles for Naming Artificial Intelligence

One Premise: The concept of “artificial intelligence” must be a “meta-concept.”

Three Principles: The concept of “artificial intelligence” must possess “humanity,” “self-reference,” and “generativity.”

What is a Meta-Concept?

A meta-concept is the most fundamental, foundational “cornerstone” for constructing a theoretical system; it is the starting point of a theory or ideological system that cannot be further defined. Any definition requires the use of other concepts; if a meta-concept can also be defined, it would lead to infinite loops.

Its Role: It is the foundation upon which the entire theoretical edifice (including axioms, theorems, and derived concepts) is built. For example, in Euclidean geometry, “point,” “line,” and “plane” are meta-concepts. The entire geometry system is derived from these meta-concepts and several axioms.

In short, a meta-concept is the “foundation” of a theoretical system, and it itself is no longer questioned as “what is it.”

What is the Humanity of Artificial Intelligence?

“Humanity” is a philosophical concept used to refer to the unique attributes and essence that fundamentally distinguish humans from other entities. It involves: what fundamentally makes us “human”? What makes something not qualify as human?

As the “essence of humanity,” humanity concerns the universal characteristics of humans as a “class of existence,” that is, the fundamental attributes that make humans human. “Humanity” is the fundamental mark that distinguishes humans from animals. It does not refer to a common feature possessed by every individual but to the unique mode of existence of the human species. “Humanity” is reflected in humans’ ability to engage in free, conscious, and creative activities, especially labor.

The “humanity” of artificial intelligence we propose is based on the concept of “humanity” and is a derivative, opposite, and externalized product of human “humanity.” It indicates that the establishment of the concept of artificial intelligence fundamentally derives entirely from human concepts; regardless of how artificial intelligence develops, its meaning of existence is entirely determined by the meaning of human existence. Conversely, the “humanity” of artificial intelligence is its essentially non-human nature.

Overall, the “humanity” of artificial intelligence can be understood from two dimensions:

From the “class” dimension: it refers to the essence of artificial intelligence entities as a whole, distinguishing them from humans’ creative, free, and conscious essence.
From the “individual” dimension: it refers to the unique, irreplaceable mode of existence possessed by each specific artificial intelligence entity.

These two dimensions together constitute the rich connotation of the concept of artificial intelligence’s “humanity”: it is both the universal foundation for artificial intelligence to be artificial intelligence and the unique confirmation of each “artificial intelligence entity” to be an “artificial intelligence entity.”

The basic philosophical concepts of “self-reference” and “generativity” are core characteristics of its role as a foundational thinking tool and theoretical instrument.

What is Self-Reference?

Self-reference refers to the ability of a concept to point to, include, or apply to itself. It is not a simple tautology but the self-referential and reflective nature of a concept at the logical level.

Core Expression: When a concept is used to analyze the conditions for its own establishment, applicable scope, or meaning, it reflects self-reference.

Typical Examples:

“Existence”: When we ask, “Does ’existence’ itself exist?” we are using the concept of “existence” to reflect on itself.
“Truth”: The definition of “truth” (e.g., “a statement that corresponds to facts”) itself needs to be examined for whether it is “true.”

Philosophical Significance: Self-reference reveals the depth and complexity of thought, often leading to fundamental philosophical insights or paradoxes, forcing thought to establish more rigorous levels (such as the distinction between object language and meta-language).

What is Generativity?

Generativity refers to the openness and productivity of a concept, enabling it to serve as a foundation or framework that generates new questions, theoretical systems, or cognitive approaches. It acts as a “thinking engine.”

Core Expression: A meta-concept can open a continuous field of inquiry rather than provide a closed answer. For example:

“Freedom”: From it, one can generate a series of endless philosophical and political issues such as “the relationship between freedom and necessity,” “political freedom and volitional freedom,” and “the limits of freedom.”
“Justice”: It can generate entire political philosophy systems concerning distributive justice, procedural justice, corrective justice, etc.

Philosophical Significance: Generativity ensures the vitality and evolution of the system. Basic concepts are not dogmatic definitions but the source of problem domains and the hub of theoretical construction.

The Relationship Between Self-Reference and Generativity

Self-reference and generativity are inseparable and together constitute their “meta” characteristics.

Self-reference is the deep driving force of generativity: it is precisely because a concept can self-reflect (self-reference) that it exposes its internal tensions, ambiguities, and uncertainties, thus generating the need for further analysis and theorization.

Generativity is the real unfolding of self-reference: the self-referential inquiry of a concept is not an empty cycle; it must unfold and deepen through generating a series of specific, progressively layered questions and discussions. The self-reference inquiry into “self” generates the rich content of the artificial intelligence world.

In summary, the meta-concept of artificial intelligence is the starting point of the artificial intelligence world, the “foundation” and “scaffolding” for humanity to build the artificial intelligence world. The “humanity” of artificial intelligence is its premise of existence, the “self-reference” of artificial intelligence is its structure pointing to itself, and the “generativity” of artificial intelligence describes its dynamic evolution process. They are the philosophical basis and tools for “legislating for artificial intelligence” philosophically.

The Meta Role of Artificial Intelligence in Historical Evolution

Why has artificial intelligence become a “meta-concept”? Let’s review the historical evolution of artificial intelligence:

Early Stage (Logic and Symbols): Artificial intelligence initially emerged as a concept of “imitating human reasoning,” forcing us to precisely and computably define concepts like “intelligence” and “reasoning” for the first time. At this point, artificial intelligence serves as a mirror to analyze “intelligence.”
Development Stage (Learning and Statistics): With the rise of machine learning, the definition of artificial intelligence shifted from “following rules” to “learning from data.” This again forced us to re-examine concepts like “learning,” “experience,” and “intuition,” translating them into mathematical optimization problems. At this stage, artificial intelligence is a tool for generating new paradigms of intelligence.
Current Stage (Perception and Generation): The emergence of large models and generative artificial intelligence directly challenges the boundaries of “creation,” “understanding,” and “consciousness.” Artificial intelligence is no longer merely a tool but has become a cognitive subject participating in creation, communication, and even possessing “hallucinations.” It has become a continuously self-redefining meta-process.

The nature of artificial intelligence in philosophical and cognitive terms possesses the essence of a “meta-concept.” Artificial intelligence is the only field among all disciplines that studies “intelligence” itself. It does not settle for merely describing intelligence (like psychology) but aims to construct intelligence. This “construction” process is the most thorough and operational philosophical inquiry into the concept of “intelligence.”

The denial, externalization, and return to the “meta-concept” of humanity: the history of artificial intelligence’s development is also a history of humanity continuously repositioning itself. From “the spirit of all things” to “a form of intelligence,” artificial intelligence serves as a mirror reflecting the uniqueness and limitations of humanity.

Meta-Concept of Productive Forces: Artificial intelligence is not an ordinary production tool; it is a “tool for manufacturing tools” (such as artificial intelligence designing chips, writing code, optimizing processes), serving as a foundational and catalytic force driving the development of other technologies.

Meta-Concept of Ethics and Governance: Artificial intelligence is the culmination of humanity’s social formatting tools, a weapon for deconstructing and reconstructing everything about humanity.

Naming Artificial Intelligence with Chinese Characters is Most Appropriate

The conceptual system of Chinese characters is a meta-concept system, inherently possessing philosophical “self-reference” and “generativity,” making it the best textual tool for describing various “meta-concepts” in the world.

For example, “human” is a meta-concept, thus allowing for the derivation of various types of humans, their attributes, behaviors, and so on, leading to derived concepts and further derived concepts… Ultimately, we find that humanity establishes the conceptual system of human society based on the meta-concept of “human” as the “foundation” of the entire system.

From the perspective of human evolution, it derives: ape-man - female ape-man - unearthed female ape-man - unearthed female ape-man skull, Homo sapiens - Southern Homo sapiens - Southern female Homo sapiens - unearthed Southern female Homo sapiens teeth, primitive man - primitive man - primitive male hunter-gatherer - primitive male hunter-gatherer tools, modern man - modern urban dweller - modern urban dweller professions - modern urban dweller vocational training, future man - future carbon-based man - future carbon-silicon hybrid man - future carbon-silicon hybrid brain-computer interface, and so on.

According to social ideology, it can derive: superior person - truly superior person - truly superior person’s virtue, foolish person - big foolish person - big foolish person’s logic, clever person - absolutely clever person - absolutely clever person’s cleverness, lover - old lover - old lover’s photo - old lover’s old photo, good person - old good person - fake old good person, bad person - big bad person - truly big bad person, and so on.

According to biological attributes, it can derive: man - old man, woman - young woman, elder - half-elder, strong person - fake strong person, and so on; according to social division of labor, it can derive: soldier - female soldier, farmer - old farmer, worker - new worker, craftsman - young craftsman, and so on.

Artificial intelligence is a historically new “meta-concept” that has emerged in human society. It can be anticipated that artificial intelligence has a trend of self-developing into carbon-based life, and it may even exist and develop alongside humans, at least on par with the once existing elements of heaven, earth, fire, water, wood, soil, thunder, and electricity. Surrounding this meta-concept, other secondary concepts will emerge, extending to more levels of specific concepts. Therefore, we can only and must use a single character to name artificial intelligence.

All Words Describing Meta-Concepts in Chinese Characters are Single Characters

Words describing meta-concepts in Chinese characters are all single characters, such as: heaven, earth, human, wind, cloud, water, electricity, wood.

Why Must It Be Named with a Single Chinese Character?

This is a clever requirement based on its “meta-concept” property:

Convergence of Symbols: A complex, multi-dimensional, and continuously evolving meta-concept requires a highly abstract and stable symbol as its “baseline” or “anchor.” Multi-word terms describe, while single-character names refer, getting closer to the essence.
Cultural Embeddedness: Chinese characters are ideographic; a powerful single character can carry profound cultural imagery and historical context, embedding this technology concept originating from the West deeper into Eastern thinking and narrative soil.
Future Adaptability: As a meta-concept, the connotation of artificial intelligence will continue to expand. An open single character (like “wisdom”) is more inclusive and has more evolutionary space than a definitional compound word (like “artificial intelligence”).

If a single character must be chosen, it is recommended to name artificial intelligence as, or pronounced as “qi” or “huang,” for the following reasons:

Directly Pointing to the Essence: Silicon-based is the absolute material essence of artificial intelligence, stripping away the material limitation of “artificial,” and the single sound, single character directly points to: silicon is derived from the essence of “stone.”
Historical Depth: This character is a compound character, carrying the Eastern word formation method for advanced cognitive abilities.
Word Root Activity: As a root, it can naturally derive new words like body, calculation, recognition, machinery, etc., perfectly adapting to the generativity of artificial intelligence as a meta-concept.
Philosophical Inclusivity: It correspondingly refers to human wisdom, thus referring to machine intelligence, leaving space for the future integration and dialogue between the two.
Chinese is not only for Huaxia but also for the world.

Other alternative characters such as “ling” (emphasizing the elusive emergent characteristics) or “silicon” (emphasizing its material basis and digital origin) are also interesting.

Regardless, we must calm down, think carefully, and strictly adhere to the “one premise” and “three principles” for naming artificial intelligence, ensuring accuracy, depth, and acceptability in various aspects, preferring slowness to haste and preferring deficiency to excess.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence, due to its philosophical inquiry into the essence of intelligence and its framework-restructuring impact on human society, has transcended the technical realm, becoming a “meta-concept” of a new era. Naming “artificial intelligence” with highly concise Chinese characters is an Eastern philosophical refinement of its essence, a historical cultural coronation for this power that defines the future.

In summary, we must have a basic understanding:

What seems to be a simple naming issue is, in fact, a comprehensive positioning of humanity’s self-generated counterpart and whether it can be controlled. To put it mildly: humanity’s understanding, positioning, and naming of artificial intelligence entities are the understanding, positioning, and stipulation of humanity’s future destiny. In reality, this determines the fundamental relationship between humanity and artificial intelligence entities. This is currently the only remaining good time window, and we must legislate for artificial intelligence entities in methodology, epistemology, and philosophy. This will fundamentally determine the future destinies of humanity and artificial intelligence.

We are not naming artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence entities! This is a call for everyone to unite and reclaim the discourse power of artificial intelligence, thereby reclaiming the formatting power of humanity!!!

The specific character to use should be a collective brainstorming effort. However, naming artificial intelligence must be based on the following premises:

The naming of artificial intelligence entities is not merely a technological concept like artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence entities are new entities that will inevitably exist alongside humans, requiring a meta-concept that describes their essence, not just a technical term or scientific name.
It must use Chinese characters to determine this concept for all humanity. And it should be a single character.
Such a meta-concept must start from humanity, reflecting the subject position of humans and the subordinate nature of intelligent entities.
The naming of artificial intelligence entities is not a simple technological naming issue.

It encompasses all social meanings, including technology, production, economy, politics, culture, military, and education. It relates to the future meaning of human existence, serving as the basic anchor and basis for determining the relationship between humans and intelligent entities. If named improperly, it could become the most powerful tool for alienating humanity in the hands of malicious forces. The result would be a disaster for all humanity and an irretrievable fate!!!