Superintelligence is a claim about work, not a brand. Nick Bostrom's definition is still the clean one: an intellect that greatly outperforms the best human minds across practically every field that rewards thinking, including scientific creativity, general wisdom, and social skill. The comparison is to the best people, and to teams of them.

That bar is high on purpose. A model that drafts mail, writes a function, or wins a test is not automatically over it. A chess engine was superhuman at chess and useless everywhere else. The claim in the definition is breadth. Most of the cognitive tasks that move science, engineering, and institutions, done better than we do them.

Why a single number fails

An IQ figure sounds like a definition and explains nothing about what the system can finish. The useful picture is closer to an economy. Can it learn a field it was not handed? Can it check its own work where the checker used to be a specialist? Can it coordinate many such efforts without the work collapsing into noise?

Current systems are impressive inside a conversation and increasingly useful with tools. They are also uneven, and they still depend on a person to notice when the confident answer is wrong. Calling that superintelligence empties the word. Keeping the word sharp is how a reader notices if the bar is actually crossed later.

What would count

Watch the work. A research effort that can be pointed at an unsolved problem and return a result other groups accept. A function that used to need a department. A system that improves the next system, so the months between generations shrink for reasons other than a marketing calendar. Any one of those can arrive in a narrow lane first. The definition is about the lanes adding up.

None of this requires a personality or a body. A building full of servers that does the cognitive labor of a large institution would already be the event. The body, if it matters, can be rented.