There is no problem with the description
The description of the site's intended audience is, well, descriptive. It is non-exclusive and non-binding. It suits us well.
Overly-literal interpretations of site titles† will lead you astray
In the context of the site, 'super user' (and 'power user') does not mean only a user with elevated privileges. It's a neat little pun based on that definition. Similarly, enthusiast doesn't mean someone who says, "gee, I'm so enthusiastic to be working with a computer".
They are terms which, as generically as I can phrase this, refer to people with an interest in solving a goal using a computer.
This site's scope is fine and its terms are broadly understood
In light of the above, this is a site for asking questions about how to achieve things using programs written for computers, by and large and as again as generically as possible. You may feel the title and audience description are lacking technical precision, but since we don't need it to be in technical or administrative terms, that's okay.
What would updating the description practically change?
Perhaps the description being non-technical and non-administrative is not okay for you. I have considered the suggestion from your perspective. I see at least two possible outcomes:
everyone immediately respects the new description and the site audience's is gatekept -- this would massively reduce the scope of the site; from one of the "big three" to something very narrow
no-one reads the updated intended audience description, or they ignore it in terms of what is actually on-topic; I don't see this being a useful change
I invite you to try to understand that most don't have an issue with the site's audience description.
We can leave The Truth for philosophers.philosophers :)
†(so maybe don't ask the stats folks why they are annoyed, and which organisation is vetting them)