Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says AI Doomerism Has 'Done a Lot of Damage' (businessinsider.com) 105
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang "said one of his biggest takeaways from 2025 was 'the battle of narratives' over the future of AI development between those who see doom on the horizon and the optimists," reports Business Insider.
Huang did acknowledge that "it's too simplistic" to entirely dismiss either side (on a recent episode of the "No Priors" podcast). But "I think we've done a lot of damage with very well-respected people who have painted a doomer narrative, end of the world narrative, science fiction narrative." "It's not helpful to people. It's not helpful to the industry. It's not helpful to society. It's not helpful to the governments..." [H]e cited concerns about "regulatory capture," arguing that no company should approach governments to request more regulation. "Their intentions are clearly deeply conflicted, and their intentions are clearly not completely in the best interest of society," he said. "I mean, they're obviously CEOs, they're obviously companies, and obviously they're advocating for themselves..."
"When 90% of the messaging is all around the end of the world and the pessimism, and I think we're scaring people from making the investments in AI that makes it safer, more functional, more productive, and more useful to society," he said.
Elsewhere in the podcast, Huang argues that the AI bubble is a myth. Business Insider adds that "a spokesperson for Nvidia declined to elaborate on Huang's remarks."
Thanks to Slashdot reader joshuark for sharing the article.
Huang did acknowledge that "it's too simplistic" to entirely dismiss either side (on a recent episode of the "No Priors" podcast). But "I think we've done a lot of damage with very well-respected people who have painted a doomer narrative, end of the world narrative, science fiction narrative." "It's not helpful to people. It's not helpful to the industry. It's not helpful to society. It's not helpful to the governments..." [H]e cited concerns about "regulatory capture," arguing that no company should approach governments to request more regulation. "Their intentions are clearly deeply conflicted, and their intentions are clearly not completely in the best interest of society," he said. "I mean, they're obviously CEOs, they're obviously companies, and obviously they're advocating for themselves..."
"When 90% of the messaging is all around the end of the world and the pessimism, and I think we're scaring people from making the investments in AI that makes it safer, more functional, more productive, and more useful to society," he said.
Elsewhere in the podcast, Huang argues that the AI bubble is a myth. Business Insider adds that "a spokesperson for Nvidia declined to elaborate on Huang's remarks."
Thanks to Slashdot reader joshuark for sharing the article.
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
"It's not helpful to me to deny me more money."
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is it means the eventual pop will be far less damaging than if it grew a lot bigger before bursting.
So while it hurts his pocketbook, it helps everyone else where the damage will not be as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
"I mean, they're obviously CEOs, they're obviously companies, and obviously they're advocating for themselves..."
"Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says- (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says- (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There will be no AGI, ever. Not with what we're doing right now with transformers. We need a "symbol" based concept (not merely text) so that the AI can understand ideas and their relationship, not just the words in a single language.
Right now what is going on is racing in the direct opposite direction, where these larger and larger LLM's are ending up less accurate because they are trying to make it "know everything (poorly)" rather than specialize the AI like humans have specialized parts of their brain f
Re:"Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says- (Score:4, Informative)
"We need a "symbol" based concept (not merely text) so that the AI can understand ideas and their relationship, not just the words in a single language."
Wow, then we could use a "tokenizer" to convert between "merely text" and these symbols! Then we could maybe even process multiple languages!
Perhaps you could learn something about how tranformer architectures work.
"LLM's do not do that. They can not."
Damn, if only someone could invent an AI that uses multiple, specialized models, kind of like a "mixture of experts".
Perhaps you could learn something about how tranformer architectures work.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe when you grow up and become an expert yourself, you'll start to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There will be no AGI, ever. Not with what we're doing right now with transformers. We need a "symbol" based concept (not merely text)
What a brilliant idea. Maybe those text tokens could be mapped into a high-dimensional semantic space?
You really need to get in touch with Sam Altman and Dario Amodei ASAP and tell them what they've been doing wrong!!
( Why does AI, more than any other technology topic, encourage the clueless to yell opinions? )
Re: (Score:2)
We need a "symbol" based concept (not merely text) so that the AI can understand ideas and their relationship
Words are "symbols" (literally) which the AI can NOT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE LLMs DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS. And apparently, neither do you. For example, you don't understand words, or that LLMs don't have comprehension.
Re: "Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says- (Score:2)
AI Doomerism Has 'Done a Lot of Damage to my stock price.
I really doubt that. Look at their market cap if you don't believe me. Look at their PE ratio. If your share price doesn't ebb and flow, then it's not publicly traded.
Don't forget that Nvidia isn't an AI company. In the AI space, they're the ones selling shovels and pickaxes. As long as the 49ers believe there's gold in them there hills, they're going to ignore those who say it's a fool's errand. The doomsayers already weren't going to buy shovels and pickaxes anyway, so what difference does it make?
Persona
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of directly addressing the backlash, he glosses it. Doesn't give tangible, palpable answers to the deserved anxiety the public has about both training of networks, their models, the results of those models, or how to increase confidence in AI-- at all.
Doesn't dress down the fools delivering new bad LLM versions each month to keep in the investors eyes.
Doesn't talk about the rejection of datacenter resources in so many areas.
Doesn't talk about how to keep useful evolution from drowning in its own noi
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the issue that they're not being paid up front in full for the shovels and pickaxes, so they need the bubble to last long enough for them to collect payment, and people pointing out that it's a bubble might provoke its collapse?
waahhh - you cant let responsibilty (Score:2)
More money????? (Score:5, Insightful)
He said "I think we're scaring people from making the investments in AI." I am not saying he's wrong about the AI paranoia. I am not saying he's right.
But he thinks we are scarying people away from investing in AI??? We invested about $200 billion in AI last year,
How much more money could we possibly put into it? How much would be enough to satisfy this guy?
Re:More money????? (Score:5, Insightful)
We invested about $200 billion in AI last year. How much more money could we possibly put into it?
Does 200B seem like a lot when GDP is 30T+? That's not even 1% for something that's being hyped as the end of all human labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does, how much is the national defense budget?
The percentage of some unrelated amount is irrelevant, as is any hype associated with it. $200B is an enormous amount of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More money????? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How much would be enough to satisfy this guy?
All of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Still wouldn't be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I think theres two prongs to this.
"Doomerism" per se, the "AI will kill us all" stuff from Elizer Yudowski and similar commenters was justified for about 9 months into the ChatGPT stuff until we realised that the giant Bayesian optimisers that the MIRI type people predicted simply where not representative of what LLMs actually are and they *seem* to lean 'friendly' even without fine tuning. We probably can ignore "yud" and the whole rockos basilisk crowd as unhinged. We probably aren't building terminators.
Re: More money????? (Score:1)
I am optimistic (Score:1)
That AI will meet its doom and this stupid bubble with pop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't it doom the internet? A lot of it has become nigh unusable since.
The still usable part come with a lot of caveats and seem to be getting worse, too.
Even before AI, what jsed to be access to so much knowledge today needs to be handled with so much care and contempt, it becomes almost harder than going to a library and searching info manually.
And then there's the division and breakdown of discourse social media helped create.
Now the thing I don't know is how much of that the .com is responsible for but
Re: I am optimistic (Score:2)
This is a really interesting g question to me. And the question is, did the .com create the rot? Did web 2.0? Or was it inherent in some way? In my view, the problem is exclusivity and monetization/privatization. In the early days much was run on public servers, very much was publicly accessible if one knew where to look and what buttons to mash. Privatization made that more accessible to the massess, which is generally good. But it put everything behind a wall for everyone, which is bad, without keeping
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The faster it pops the less damage it will do to the economy and after it pops, the industry has a chance to get on a more sustainable track without the overhype. But for sure it will not go away.
Re: (Score:2)
it will continue improving
Not without a major shift in approach. Currently the problem is a bubble is caused by the way it is improving, an arms race to create and process the largest datasets possible. That is not a sustainable course and especially if it starts ingesting its own output as training data AI will in fact be doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AI as a general concept won't, but in its current form it will. There's only so much information to ingest, only so much processing that can be done on it. It's a finite resource exercise. As we get past the trillion parameter models things will fail to scale spectacularly.
Sounds like good advice. (Score:2)
If a CEO admits that his interests are deeply conflicted and substantially at odds with those of society; maybe believe him? Is it that hard?
Jensen Huang, please buy me some RAM (Score:1, Offtopic)
"So you can point that fuckin' finger up your ass" (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I get some of the doomer-ism is over the top at times but I also can;'t really blame those folks when you see how the AI companies and their "fans" have been presenting this technology and acting about it, they are their own worst enemies.
They literally can't keep in their pants how much they are in love with the idea of replacing workers and particularity, for awhile at first at least, there was this out and out admission that the AI people were gleeful that about it replacing artists in particular because of perceived political biases.
Then there's the forced nature of it where the term is everywhere and means everything and even right here "Scaring people from making investments" motherfucker I'd say you have gotten enough investments for the next decade, it's like Mac cultivating mass, stop cultivating and start harvesting.
Projecting Too Much? (Score:3)
It's not helpful to people. It's not helpful to the industry. It's not helpful to society. It's not helpful to the governments.
Yes, those are the arguments that some are making about AI. Frankly, they are more credible than a CEO essentially saying that they are hurt some people don't just trust companies like them to do the right thing. With the numbers being thrown around, skepticism is required here. It's bad enough when our government throws massive money at military projects with very dubious actual value. But the potential labor disruption and further accumulation of wealth at the very top that is possible with AI, it is irresponsible not to have the highest level of oversight and regulation in this case.
Oh, and some of the people you are making unhappy are the very demographic that brought NVidia to where they are. If AI is so important, NVidia should just commit 100%. Announce you are leaving the consumer and low-end workstation GPU market entirely.
Will he appologize when its all over (Score:1)
Will he appologize when its all over?
The cause is easy to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypemongers make pitches to investors that AI will allow companies to eliminate workers. They get quoted widely in the press
Some people use AI to create slop and scams
The general public only sees stories of job loss, slop and scams along with stories about rising electric rates
Those who look further, see enormous potential for AI to solve previously intractable problems in science, engineering, medicine and maybe even politics
Re:The cause is easy to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who look further, see enormous potential for AI to solve previously intractable problems in science, engineering, medicine and maybe even politics
But those possibilities are not what LLMs will be useful for, and LLMs are the one thing that billions are invested into - for the single reason that investors bet on LLMs being useful to make many employees redundant. Don't think for a second that those billions are invested into data-centers for LLMs because somebody wants to solve any scientific problems humans could otherwise not solve.
Re:The cause is easy to see (Score:4, Interesting)
Hypemongers make pitches to investors that AI will allow companies to eliminate workers. They get quoted widely in the press
Some people use AI to create slop and scams
The general public only sees stories of job loss, slop and scams along with stories about rising electric rates
Those who look further, see enormous potential for AI to solve previously intractable problems in science, engineering, medicine and maybe even politics
The problem is, they're not wrong about job losses, slop and scams. Nor rising energy prices.
The problem with AI being used to solve intractable problems is not that the average person cant envisage it, it's that the AI peddlers themselves cant see any money in it so they've no interest in problems scientific, engineering or medical. Politics maybe but that's only to protect their bonuses and reduce their tax rates at the detriment of the average citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
In the re
"Science fiction" is the lamest criticism (Score:2)
Of all of the criticisms leveled against arguments for or against AI, labeling your opponent's arguments as "science fiction" is by far the stupidest. It's a content-free criticism, just an attempt to imply that an argument you don't like is fantastical to avoid having to engage it on its merits.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all of the criticisms leveled against arguments for or against AI, labeling your opponent's arguments as "science fiction" is by far the stupidest. It's a content-free criticism, just an attempt to imply that an argument you don't like is fantastical to avoid having to engage it on its merits.
The interesting thing is AI doomerism itself works the same way. Probabilities of technology induced doom are at present based on inherently unknowable stipulations for which no objective foundation exists to make evidence based prediction. Given current constraints the question of AI induced doom is itself outside the realm of science.
Sometimes doomers are open and honest about this. The typical retort after airing the impossibility of an objective analysis of doom is of course more... .. doom.. "BUT..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing is AI doomerism itself works the same way. Probabilities of technology induced doom are at present based on inherently unknowable stipulations for which no objective foundation exists to make evidence based prediction.
I disagree with this. I think there's a very solid foundation: The history of human interaction with other species who are for some reason inconvenient to us, qualified with the consideration that humans at least need roughly the same sort of environment that other Earth-based life forms do, a constraint that AI won't share.
Given that, it makes a lot of sense to ask ourselves if we want to put ourselves in the position of one of the many species we've eradicated, sometimes intentionally, usually uninten
Every Accusation is a Confession (Score:2)
Jensen Huang accuses someone of "causing damage". Interesting.
Anyway, if it's a choice between an "end-of-the-world narrative" and Jensen's prosperity gospel, I'll give the edge to the doomers.
AI bubble is not a myth, it is consequence of hype (Score:2)
How does Jensen Huang even have a job? (Score:2)
Jensen Huang never fails to impress me as someone who knows NOTHING about AI. He drops buzzwords but is otherwise a fraud. I assume he knows about graphics, but AI he does not.
At least the other frauds in AI can make it seem like they know what they are talking about, Huang clearly cannot.
As a consumer and worker (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing they do is guzzle water and electricity, take up all the RAM and storage and occasionally cost me some job opportunities eventually costing a hell of a lot of job opportunities if it all pans out.
Remember that the problem AI is designed to solve is paying wages.
And even if it doesn't immediately replace your job the jobs it does replace or just gone from the economy and so is all that spending. Because there are no magical new jobs to replace the ones ai and automation are taking. Seriously sit down and try to write out the list of jobs. You can't they don't exist.
This means that as ai and automation continuously take more and more jobs there's less spending in our consumer driven economy.
That's going to create a death spiral. There's less spending because there's less jobs and with less spending that's going to lead to layoffs in other sectors of the economy and less jobs and so on so on so forth.
It will eventually settle down but as it stands it's looking like it all settle down around 25 to 40% unemployment. Permanently.
But we're still going to have a whole lot of people we need to be working. So there's going to be a conflict between the people for who there is no useful work that they are capable of doing and the people who we still need to be doing work.
And no we can't all just be plumbers and HVAC welders.
Remember that 25% unemployment triggered world War ii. And the president of the United States is looking to start a war with Europe...
Meanwhile people who have jobs are going to resent people that don't have jobs wanting food and shelter and people without jobs who are facing homelessness and starvation are going to resent handouts.
I don't know what we do about that. I don't think there's anything we can do about that. As it stands I think our leadership is going to start a conventional world War and it's going to go nuclear.
Happy to be proven wrong but that seems to be the trajectory. And if it doesn't happen the alternative seems to be techno feudalism and a terrifying dystopian where a tenth of a percent of the population live like gods and do terrible things to everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that the problem AI is designed to solve is paying wages
The problem *every* automation technology is designed to solve, is paying wages. AI is just the latest in a long, long line of such technologies. Productivity (which can be measured as needing fewer workers to complete X amount of work) is what keeps inflation in check.
True but most people don't think AI (Score:2)
Even here a lot of people haven't cottoned on to the fact that AI exist as an automation tool for billionaires.
Automation has been devouring middle class jobs since the 80s it's just been doing it in the factories so us tech nerds didn't really notice it
There's a study that indicates that 70% of middle class jobs lost in the last 45 years got taken by robots in factories.
But absolutely no on
Re: (Score:2)
There's a study that indicates that 70% of middle class jobs lost in the last 45 years got taken by robots in factories.
This statement implies that many middle class jobs have been lost. The truth is, the middle class has shrunk mainly because many of them have moved to the *upper* class. https://www.pewresearch.org/ra... [pewresearch.org]
According to the above study, the middle class has shrunk by 10% since 1970. But of those 10%, 7% moved to the upper class, and only 3% moved to the lower class. Further:
Households in all income tiers had much higher incomes in 2022 than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation
Automation of factory and other jobs has *not* decimated people's lifestyles, it has made them *better* off.
Re: (Score:1)
A middle class person moving to a higher income bracket in current times still can't afford what their 1970's counterpart could.
Using the years from that Pew Research article, an upper income household making $250,000 in 2022 would have been making almost $350,000 in 1971 (according to inflation). That's a significant difference.
Additional to that, th
Re: (Score:2)
A middle class person moving to a higher income bracket in current times still can't afford what their 1970's counterpart could.
I think you missed the part, from the Pew research, that said:
Households in all income tiers had much higher incomes in 2022 than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation
This means that people from 2022 can afford *more* than their counterparts in 1970. Let me help you with the math.
That person making $250,000 in 2022--that would have been only $35,390.61 in 1971 dollars. https://www.bls.gov/data/infla... [bls.gov] Median household income in 1971 was around $10,000, worth about $70,000 today. Median household income today is $83,000, which is *more* than that $70,000 based on inflation.
That average house in 1970 had 1,500
Jesus Christ no (Score:2)
That study is really really really stretching the definition of middle class.
Middle class means you are economically secure and have a socially acceptable level of disposable income.
You're ignoring the percentage of people who went from middle class to poor.
Also that study rates middle class as $100,000 a year. That's not middle class in 2025 that's barely making it. You're not in the middle class until you're clearing at least 150k becau
Re: (Score:2)
Your 65% figure is not correct. https://institute.bankofameric... [bankofamerica.com]
According to this source, only 28% of *lower* income Americans live paycheck to paycheck? I'll bet that shocks you. And 18% of *upper* income Americans also live paycheck to paycheck (same source). So while income level has some impact on the percentage of people who live paycheck to paycheck, this group is a minority among every income category. In my view, this has more to do with people's spending habits, than income level. People of all in
creating new AI powered jobs (Score:1)
While AI may replace some jobs completely, more of it will be used to do more work that simply was not done previously at all. I do not suggest people should use AI as their psychologist, but they clearly do, so people who have never gone to a therapist mat get some therapy, good or bad, without paying for therapy. These people were not going to pay money for this service, now they are just getting some sort of s service at no extra expense for them. Same with many other things, I do not think these vid
Re: creating new AI powered jobs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I run a few companies, I never thought I could afford to shoot and air complex, realistic looking commercials for my products and I have not done so previously. Now, that AI video generation is available I actually pay contractors to create videos for me that otherwise wouldn't be possible to make. This means someone gets paid for work that I would never be able to afford if there wasn't any AI at all. Chew on that.
Re: (Score:2)
And remember no matter how essential you think your products are or how essential they really are it doesn't matter if people don't have the money to buy them. There are children dying of cancer right now because they can't afford the
Re: (Score:1)
Complete nonsense. I just participated in the CES 2026 show and except for very few and between products there was nothing there that would 'take jobs away' in quantities that you are proposing. In fact all of that stuff is aimed to create more jobs for people to design, build and sell the new products. As to the AI that helps creating some videos and sounds, the real problem is not going to be lost jobs, quite the opposite, I am *paying* someone that I would have never paid to create videos based on som
Re: As a consumer and worker (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Keep it up.
true irony (Score:2)
A.I. is like a knife (Score:2)
A.I. is a tool, just like a knife. It can be used for good things and bad things.
Our beloved "governments" are using it to track citizens, facial recognition, license plate movement tracking, "who and what to bomb" among other travesties.
Doomerism? (Score:3)
You mean the voices of fucking reason?
The mistrust isn't AI-specific (Score:5, Insightful)
So a "doomer narrative, end of the world narrative, science fiction narrative" is "...not helpful to people. It's not helpful to the industry. It's not helpful to society. It's not helpful to the governments..."
What you seem to not understand, Mr. Huang, is that people's fears and rejection of AI isn't really about AI per se. It's the track record of the companies building and pushing AI that puts us off. Most of us aren't consciously aware of this; but if you asked people if their fears were of AI itself, or of what they expect companies to do with it based on their past actions, I'm pretty sure most would say it's the latter.
It's mildly refreshing to hear you say "they're obviously CEOs, they're obviously companies, and obviously they're advocating for themselves"; however, it's too little, and too late, to foster the trust you seem to be asking for. After all, you billionaire brogligarchs created the "doomer narrative" yourselves, by leveraging tech innovations to increase the wealth divide, concentrate power, steal privacy and autonomy, and increase AGW. Not to mention using said innovations to manipulate, propagandize, and traumatize the populace in the name of profit and power.
So no, Mr. Huang, you don't now get to complain about what you see as am irrational "science fiction narrative". Stupidly large and powerful tech companies like yours have heaped more and more fuel on the dystopian fire we now struggle against. Personally, I hope that fire ultimately burns your empires to the ground and allows for the eventual restoration of sanity to our world.
Nobody trusts you. Nobody sees you as a beacon of knowledge and wisdom, nor even good sense. Many of us fear you and your kind for the power you (mis)-wield, the hubris and entitlement you wear like a second skin, and your willingness to tear society and the world apart in the name of profit.
Further to the "science fiction narrative" you moan about: If and when you and your kind loudly and humbly disown pipe-dreams such as Mars colonies and man-machine hybrids and racial purity and Technocracy and all the other utter shite so many of your peers shovel onto us; and when you start piecing back together the social contract that you've torn up and ground under foot; then maybe we'll listen to you.
Unless and until that happens Mr. Huang, you have nothing to say that I want to hear.
Not enough damage (Score:2)
but not enough damage. At least it's enough to get attention from one of the top promoters. I'm surprised they don't have more AI bots defending it instead of just buying media, lobbyists, and flat our bribery.
These CEOs are drinking their own Kool aid (Score:3)
They are spending money at the rate of multiple GDPs of countries on something that's risky and without application. They are pricing in replacing significant factions of the workforce with AI. The problem is there is no technological pathway to obtain that goal. The AI companies are spending cash to compete with each other to get to this goal without knowing how to get there, but the plan is 1) throw more hardware at it and scale up 2) throw more personnel at the problem.
If they don't obtain their goal we will have a global recession, so you can bet that some of us are interested in saying 'you might want to think twice about this'
These guys are stupid enough to run companies, technologies and economies into the ground. Think about the robotic/urban farm movement a few years ago. The technocrats threw 100s of millions, and today? Nothing to show for it.
Re: These CEOs are drinking their own Kool aid (Score:2)
The problem is that the current energy requirements make the possibility of making money impossible. It will take at least 10 years probably more like 15 and possibly as much as 20 years of hard grind of Mores Law to fix that. The current expenditure is unsustainable for that time frame and thus the bubble will burst it is just a question of when people realise that.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has done a quantification of energy costs. A human body/brain takes ~200W to run, and 200Wh for one hour. An AI image generation can take 500Wh. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] Granted AI can do this a lot faster than a human, but what is more economical?
Google says the typical gemini search takes 0.24Wh
So stop it with the complaints! (Score:2)
Just soak up all that good AI and chips! Who cares if it works? Who cares if electricity prices go through the roof? Who cares if datacenters take all the clean water?
After all, none of that gives him money. What does is you not asking any questions and just forking over the cash.
AI Is damaging our society. (Score:2)
'Damage' (Score:2)
But nowhere NEAR as much damage as Nvidia has done.
Have you seen RAM and GPU and flash prices? People building nuclear reactors and firing up more dirty coal plants JUST to supply the energy needs for freaking LLMs so dumbasses can make cute kitten pics instead of just taking cute kitten pics?
At this point, NVidia has joined Exxon and BP in the much coveted 'evil greedy corporations that have done the most damage to the planet and everyone living on it' category.
Doom CEOs causing actual harm. (Score:2)
So the CEO literally manufacturing the AI solutions, is worried about too much doomerism? Perhaps if other CEOs weren’t firing staff by the thousands because of either current use or in preparation of the exact thing the Doom guy is packaging and selling.
Making humans damn near unemployable with no viable financial plan, isn’t going to merely cause some minor behavior changes. It’s going to force the human race to put Greed on the menu. By any means necessary.
When the nVidia CEO can sol
The guy selling chips is whinging (Score:2)
Maybe let's hear how LLM's are already benefitting us. Real world examples. Not many are there ... are there any other than, I was able to fire some people, I made another shit app quicker, I made some dross for social media advertising revenue?
The story will end, LLM's tried to solve a problem that didn't exist and marginally augmented what we already do. It's more crypto wank feeding frenzy, who is going to blink first?
Good (Score:1)
Already seen the downside of AL, false information (Score:2)
Exactly the opposite (Score:3)
AI hyping is doing a lot of damage and that damage will get massive when the crash comes. As it must, the financial numbers are far too insane to be sustainable.
Typical profiteering liar at work.
Doomerism driven by executive optimism (Score:2)
\o/ (Score:1)
Maybe AI can help with his future statements so they don't appear to be variants of "anything hurting our profits is bad for humanity' ?
Oh, no, the AI bubble isn't a bubble (Score:2)
Don't run down my stock option prices!
Many of the datacenters won't be built, and Nvidia can't produce enough chips, and the datacenters that do get built won't be able to handle the newer generation of chips, and....
https://www.wheresyoured.at/th... [wheresyoured.at]
Environmental and Electricity rate damage. (Score:2)