Article · 9 October 2026

Superintelligence as loyalty test, 10,000 bots and an experts' manifesto

A word turned into a loyalty test, a pioneering sentence for fraud with AI music, and a manifesto asking for more democratic control. Three stories, three different questions.

Alejandro Carmona · Nopubly · 9 October 2026

The line that will circulate today is short: whoever does not say "superintelligence" is "the enemy". ABC attributes it to Donald Trump. The paper recalls that a little over a week ago Trump ordered AI to be renamed "superintelligence", and that he has now gone a step further. The standfirst cuts off just before saying how anyone who doesn't use the word will be treated. That part won't fit in a screenshot. You have to open the piece.

What is clear is the move itself. First an order about the name. Then a line between those who use it and those who don't. A technical term starts working as a loyalty test. What gets forwarded will be "enemy". What ABC reports is the sequence.

The same day, ABC runs another story, of a different kind. Michael Smith, a 54-year-old musician, has been sentenced to 18 months in prison. The headline says he outdid Taylor Swift with AI-made music and 10,000 bots, and that his fraud was worth millions. The standfirst calls it a pioneering ruling by US courts against digital fraud in the music industry. It also cuts off before explaining exactly what he did. We won't fill that gap.

Here the line that travels is the Taylor Swift one. It's a hook: a famous name, a round number, a prison term. But the detail that matters sits elsewhere. According to the outlet, the sentence is the first of its kind, which makes it a precedent rather than an anecdote.

The third piece comes from elDiario.es. It is an interview with Francesca Bria, and the headline already carries its caveat: "Spain has led the social approach to AI, but that cannot be taken for granted." The standfirst concerns the international group of AI experts that has advised the Spanish government this legislature. It closes two years of work with a manifesto demanding more democratic control over AI. Again the text is cut off before saying over what exactly. What is on the page is what we have: a two-year review and a demand.

Pasted together, the three look like one debate. They are not. One is about who decides what the technology is called. Another is about what happens when someone uses it to cheat. The third is about who should oversee it. Three questions, three actors: a president, a court and an advisory panel.

Un análisis más profundo de las implicaciones (A deeper look at the implications)

What follows is this newsroom's opinion, not a fact from the cited pieces.

Start with the legal side. The bot case shows something that will happen again. When a technology allows unlimited content production, the offence moves from the content to the use. According to ABC, the sentence is a pioneer. We expect other cases to cite it. Platforms that pay for plays will have to show they can tell a person from a bot, and courts will start asking.

Then work. A musician competing with music generated and played by machines is competing with a cost close to zero. That is the uncomfortable part of the case. The fraud is illegal, but the pressure on people who live from music does not depend on fraud. We expect the sector to demand more verification and more transparency about what was generated with AI, and to demand it before any clear rule exists.

On the economic side, the fight over the name matters more than it looks. Whoever sets the vocabulary sets the frame: "superintelligence" sounds like something to chase at all costs, not something to regulate. If the word becomes a loyalty badge, the debate over democratic control raised by the panel's manifesto starts at a disadvantage, because arguing begins to look like opposing. This is a prediction, not a fact: we expect companies and administrations to adopt the term out of caution, not conviction.

As for how AI will be used in society, we think there will be more origin labels and more outside audits. Not out of enthusiasm, but because cases like Smith's will force people to prove who did what. The democratic control the manifesto asks for, according to elDiario.es, will have to move from declaration to concrete mechanisms: registers, inspections, penalties. Until that happens, regulation will keep trailing behind court cases.

One last caution: Bria warns, per the headline, that Spain's social leadership cannot be taken for granted. That line works as a method too. No regulatory progress holds by itself.

Qué hacer antes de reenviar (What to do before you forward)

• Open the ABC piece on Trump before passing on the word "enemy". The standfirst cuts off right where it explains what that means.
• Don't present Smith's sentence as the end of AI fraud. ABC calls it pioneering, not definitive. And the Taylor Swift headline is not the ruling.
• Don't use the panel's manifesto as if it were a law or a government plan. According to elDiario.es, it is a two-year review and a call for more democratic control.
• Don't paste the three stories together as if they were one argument. They answer different questions.
• If a screenshot has no outlet name or date, don't forward it. You can check our sources and method in our criteria.

Questions

What did Trump say about the word "superintelligence"?

According to ABC, he said that anyone who does not call AI "superintelligence" is "the enemy". The outlet recalls that a little over a week ago he ordered AI to be renamed with that term. The standfirst does not say how those who don't use it will be treated, so read the full piece.

What sentence did Michael Smith receive?

According to ABC, Michael Smith, a 54-year-old musician, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The headline mentions AI-generated music, 10,000 bots and a multimillion-dollar fraud. ABC calls it a pioneering sentence against digital fraud in the music industry.

What is the expert group advising the Spanish government asking for?

According to elDiario.es, the group closes two years of work with a manifesto demanding more democratic control over AI. The standfirst stops there. In the interview, Francesca Bria says Spain has led the social approach to AI, but that this cannot be taken for granted.