upvote
The image of Nvidia advocating for exports of GPUs to china while compromised by an allegedly Chinese agent is the real issue here. Endless congressional hearings on that topic starting in Jan. The Nvidia corp still has to answer for that even when Jensen is out.
reply
> The image of Nvidia advocating for exports of GPUs to china while compromised by an allegedly Chinese agent is the real issue here.

I said the same thing a few days ago and got heavily downvoted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50417959

> Endless congressional hearings on that topic starting in Jan. Ha! Who's going to wait until Jan? There's already a congressional hearing on Nov/18 https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairme...

I may sound arrogant, but I am not. Many people are a bit slow to catch on to these incidents or can't see beyond one layer, like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50418215

reply
+1. Jensen getting really heated when pressed by Dwarkesh over China during his interview can be seen in new light now.
reply
reply
Thanks for the link.

Watched the interview and as far as I see he was getting 'heated' because he was speaking the obvious truth and being frustrated by poorly informed questions.

This is entirely expected from somebody like him who has a long history of being on the right side of technical argument.

He is a huge loss to Nvidia and the US - replaced by a ex-CFO.

reply
The US had put an export ban, and he clearly skirted it while at the same time banging a suspected Chinese spy. The company he ran like a fiefdom broke the rules set in place by the same country for which he's supposedly a loss.

I don't see it. Nvidia has a lot to answer for, and the fact that Jensen was very successful as a CEO does not shy away from the cracks in the structure.

reply
Are we saying he was skirting the ban because he was having an affair with a Chinese spy? That seems like a stretch. Jensen was ideologically opposed to a ban, he didn't need any coaxing in that regard.

It was illegal, and I'm sure if this comes to light there will be (major) repercussions, but I don't see it as an immoral move.

Cheating on your wife of 40 years OTOH...

reply
However the fact he was having an affair muddies the waters on the two. At best, the optics look bad to someone outside. Yes, he could have been opposed for money reasons, and that’s a position that needs no more explanation.

But how do we know he wasn’t being whispered to by the smoking baddie he was trying to impress? Maybe he’d not have taken the risk were he not having this affair but we know what men do when their ego is on the line. Case in point: Musk paying people to play PoE for him and losing his shit when he was caught.

Do I think money is a good enough explanation? Yes. Could I believe that what’s in his pants also played a part? Also yes.

reply
People at this level get intoxicated with their power. They think they are invincible and can do whatever they want. Often they can. Sometimes it all comes crashing down, here for example, or the case of Eric Swalwell. But they never think it will happen to them.
reply
The board should be fired next for allowing a CEO to have 60 direct reports and no succession plan.
reply
It turned them into one of the most valuable companies in history. The board can figure out succession now.
reply
Is that the reason? Or is it that they happened to make a product that became very in demand?
reply
I am curious which questions you found poorly informed? Jensen Huang started with "China could have trained a Mythos level model" because the resources needed for that were "mundane". Maybe you believe him on that or you know that to be true but maybe mundane is not the right word. Also the rest of his answer did not age well. I think Dwarkesh genuinely wanted to have a deep conversation and not to be a troll.
reply
It's refreshing to see a podcaster push their guest to defend their positions, after having had the displeasure of listening to clips of Lex Fridman just accepting even obvious bullshit from his guests without any follow up. It sounds like Dwarkesh did the same with Dario, who argued the other side.
reply
The questions weren't poorly informed just because you agree with what Jensen was saying. He seems pretty obviously to have made drastically poor judgement decisions that potentially affect national security of the US. I don't know if I would consider that to be a huge loss to the US.
reply
deleted
reply
Replaced by a CFO… this is what they always do. And that sign the slow death of the any company.
reply
A CFO as interim CEO is fine. Their job is to keep the house in order and Wall Street at bay while the search for a new CEO is underway.
reply
Yeah, this is the standard/textbook move. Keep things moving forward and the financials in order during the search.
reply
Interim. They just need someone to crisis manage. I’m sure they have veteran capable executives other than Jensen. Maybe the AI focus wasn’t all Jensens idea even
reply
All of the sudden people care about keeping Nvidia around? Theyve been jerking people around for decades, screwing customers, shitty drivers, exploding power connectors, anti competitive practices for miles.
reply
Opinions on Nvidia depend heavily on one's shares:gpus ratio.
reply
Yeah, its just their karma finally paying dividends.
reply
There are so many people who could fill his position. Not such a big loss
reply
Replaced for like 10 minutes until the new CEO comes in. This isn't the time to announce the permanent next-20-years CEO.
reply
He clearly made some very bad decisions or we wouldn't be having this discussion
reply
> replaced by a ex-CFO.

Let's be clear, she is just the interim CEO (primarily because Huang neglected to ever even start a transition plan) while NVidia searches for a permanent CEO. The names I've seen floated are Rene Haas, CEO of ARM, and Ian Buck, the creator of CUDA.

reply
I'm not sure what to make of the idol worshipping going on here. He was an average CEO and the train will continue right along. NVIDIA doesn't exist because of some inherent greatness of a single person.
reply
He saw the promise in GPGPU 10 years ahead of time and kept funding it out of a stubborness despite a lack of returns until it 1000xd the business.

You can say it was luck but it was definitely not "average".

reply
I can't say it was solely his choice but Nvidia continually made fantastic market moves. CUDA, then their positioning to ride the crypto boom, and then the AI boom. all of that required deliberate planning with a strong long term vision.
reply
He has poor judgement but I’ve yet to see any of the major consumer hardware companies that understand both hardware and software in the way he did. Or really the value of a fully vertically integrated stack.

Nvidia thrived because it paired great hardware with great software.

AMD and Intel think hardware is enough; it’s not. There’s a reason neither has ever been able to compete with Nvidia.

They have a giant ego, but I’d argue it’s probably well deserved.

Apple is/was similar. They also see that hardware without great software is useless. Spend as much; if not more on software to make your hardware shine.

reply
NVIDIA doesn't exist because of some inherent greatness of a single person.

Yeah, it pretty much does. CUDA is why they are positioned where they are. Other players like AMD and Intel could have done that, but they didn't, and if they had, they wouldn't have persevered for 10+ years with essentially nothing to show for it.

Whether CUDA will continue to maintain dominance is less clear. It may become a literal victim of its own success, as CUDA-based models gain the ability to migrate themselves to new platforms.

reply
> He is a huge loss to Nvidia and the US

Let's expect better of leadership than to be criminal.

reply
I'm not sure how long I should've kept watching but so far that looks like very good and knowledgeable answers, exactly what I'd expect from a competent tech CEO.

Unless it's like super far in, if this counts as heated then I just don't know what you expect.

reply
Also got a similar vibe from him during Ezra Klein interview but Ezra was better at keeping it on rails.

https://youtu.be/HjurAWAr_nY

reply
reply
Wrong interview
reply
Its about his push for China. No intention of posting the other interview.
reply
I remember listening to that and thinking, this sounds like a guy who is primarily focused on selling chips and is brushing away legitimate concerns in a way that, I just did not find very compelling. A little bit too much protest you might say. Not to say there isn't or wasn't validity to his arguments, but in light of the current circumstances it seems to me that those arguments are quite a bit less valid than they were, and I've certainly swung my personal opinion from being on the fence to a hard no to selling these chips to Chinese buyers.

If the Chinese Communist Party are going through such great lengths to obtain these advanced Nvidia chips, it further invalidates a lot of what I've been reading here and elsewhere about China "catching up" or that being the leading models isn't what matters (commoditization). You don't do stuff like this unless you really need something.

reply
Talking to friends who worked in diplomacy - honey traps are extremely common and often tried quite routinely. It makes sense if you think about it. The failure rate on these is going to be fairly high and even if it’s a small success (ie a one night stand sort of thing) you can get a little compromat. The cost is probably fairly negligible, a lot of this will be fairly low risk as far as spying goes.
reply
> honey traps are extremely common and often tried quite routinely.

WSJ reports that U.S. intelligence says Chinese intelligence approached Alice to become an asset after she met Jensen in March 2024. So, she wasn't targeted.

reply
also, men are redickulous. And they can go in any number of beneficial direction from turning informant, selling GPUs to the chinese, or just a pee tape, etc. Just like a lottery of fun ways to screw with an adversary.
reply
I think it's worth remembering that China isn't a monolithic bloc, and CCP doesn't drive everything, that there are tons of private enterprises there that would benefit, even if the Chinese government strategically would prefer to push Huawei to grow the domestic capability. There being a ton of private demand internal to China doesn't invalidate Jensen's view that it's a strategic blunder to let Huawei get a foothold in the market. Within the CCP, there's also a lot of inter-regional competition to show growth in their own regions, because that's the primary qualification for advancement within the party.

That said, I don't have any special insight into the specifics of who was driving the demand backing Megaspeed.

reply
I find this hard to believe. Covid made it clear the CCP is very much in charge and in control.
reply
Which part? You find it hard to believe that there are private enterprises there that don't always do exactly what CCP wants? Or that there're conflicting incentives inside the CCP, so that "what CCP wants" isn't simple?
reply
> invalidates . . . . China "catching up"

China catching up does not mean they are not still behind.

Also, China is a big country with many companies. While some may be trying to catch up via local development, others may still prefer getting western hardware right now e.g. in order to get a competitive advantage over those catching up.

reply
I'm a bit out of the loop, what part of what he said is wrong? He said they have more power and the more capability to produce chips, so they can essentially just brute force things vs the US if they wanted to: is that not the case?
reply
If they don't need NVIDIA then why are they attempting so hard to bypass export controls.

If they don't need NVIDIA then why is the now former CEO of NVIDIA trying so hard to allow exprt controls to be relaxed.

And it's because brute forcing only allows you to not fall behind, but you can't catch up to frontier models or surpass.

reply
That's like asking why China is building nuclear and coal power plants when solar is so much cheaper. They are doing all of the above.

Let's assume for a second that the compromat story on Huang is true, how much would that have cost? It could be everywhere from 10k to 10m $, depending on how difficult it was to get access, but it would still be a rounding error for AI invest.

Chips aren't what maketh SI anyway. The US is ahead because of a trifecta of having the best (most) hardware, best data, and best talent. You might also throw in business culture. But the same way Google is leading from behind in the US AI eco system, China is behind the frontier on LLMs, but laying foundational work in robotics, multi-modal models and integrated factories that might prove a big advantage down the line.

reply
Could it not be true that they could brute force it if need be, but it would be much easier to use the better chips if they can get them?
reply
No it's not the case because if they could do it they would already have done it. Selling them Nvidia chips doesn't change that.

But here's a link to the podcast episode if you want to give it a listen. It will inform a lot to the discussion taking place here and help you understand a few of the things he said that are probably now wrong: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/jensen-huang

reply
I am trying to separate the current situation from his comments. Perhaps that is a mistake. He's trying to sell chips but that doesn't make him wrong.
reply
But what’s the point ultimately? Delaying their progress by a couple years?

Not selling them chips virtually guarantees that they will learn how to make their own, very quickly. The end result of that is much, much worse for the USA.

(and could leave Taiwan in a much weaker position in the near future)

reply
People are bending over backwards to come to try to find some deep reason, but I think the reason is simple - the people in charge are not particularly farsighted nor insightful. It's simply short-term thinking without consideration of long-term consequences - it's not limited to just businesses.

For another example, the reason Chinese are not allowed on the 'international' ISS is because of the Wolf Amendment. [1] The idea was that if we just allowed them onto the ISS they'd steal all of our elite tech or something. Within a decade they had launched their own space station and carried out various revolutionary space activities.

And of course all of that happened while the ISS itself continues to deteriorate with no replacement in sight. And when China did an unprecedented sample return mission from the far side of the Moon and offered the whole world access to samples, US researchers had to jump through a bunch of hoops to receive them, again thanks to the same law.

It's just myopia.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment

reply
It feels like Space Race thinking, honestly. If the US delays China and ends up with an AGI god a few years in advance, that can still be a significant advantage even if China can catch up. This especially would hold true if a theoretical AGI could maximally leverage RSI so the improvement curve becomes exponential.
reply
It's much closer to nuclear arms-race thinking.

If the US or China developes an AGI that can leverage RSI, the game is over. It is over in the same way that WW3 is over as soon as the missiles are in the air: it doesn't matter who has the fastest or highest yield missiles, because there is a finite amount of time before there is nobody left to care about the advantages of one side. Except at least WW3 is over in about an hour, whereas an AGI could take years or decades to complete whatever thing it has been misaligned to desire.

AI alignment research is still in its alchemy era, and global cyber security is underfunded and bad. As a species, we simply do not have the tools to deal with AGI that can self-improve.

reply
What stops another power from developing its own AGI a year or two later? Or from catching up once there are two competing RSI AGIs? The Soviets were a few years behind on getting nukes but they still got them.
reply
The first AGI protecting its turf and sabotaging or corrupting the second AI to be its agent.
reply
[flagged]
reply
> Not selling them chips virtually guarantees that they will learn how to make their own, very quickly. The end result of that is much, much worse for the USA.

Are you proposing we guarantee access to avoid potential access?

reply
Friends close and enemies closer.

An economy kept dependent on American tech is unlikely to drop bombs on America and vice versa. Co dependency prevents war.

reply
This isn’t what China does though, the moment new tech crosses the border they reverse engineer and start producing it locally. IP protections are meaningless there. How many times does this have to happen to sink in?
reply
deleted
reply
Keeping them dependent upon you guarantees that they never surpass you and that you can milk the relationship for all its worth economically and geopolitically. When they have their own fabs spun up it's possible that you are the one eventually stuck with inferior tech, and you lose all sort of revenue + leverage you'd otherwise have from the relationship.
reply
It make sense. China had X amount of demand. If the demand is met they are satisfied, if the demand remains unmet they seek alternatives. That seeking of alternatives primarily means huge amounts of money, that would go to Nvidia, going to direct competitors of Nvidia to "chip" away at their competitive advantage.
reply
This. And this happened before, see the China Sovjet split
reply
AI has been identified as strategic national priority for both the Chinese and United States.

NVIDIA’s commercial interest is pretty clear… it’s beneficial to them. to sell everyone to maintain the dominance of CUDA. That is not necessarily the national interest. And remember that espionage and infiltration is not a one-sided affair, the US may well have the ability to sabotage Chinese development efforts. You just don’t know.

End of the day, corporate CEOs are very powerful, but they’re not as powerful as the government. My guess is that Jenson truly didn’t think that this individual was a spy, and figured that the questionable legality of chip exports to Chinese proxies could be addressed by ingratiating the administration.

reply
Why wouldn’t they have done that by now then? Where is their ASML or TSMC? They’ve had decades to catch up already.
reply
> They’ve had decades to catch up already

No, they haven't. They spent the first decade after WW2 repairing the damage left behind by the Japanese and their Civil War. Subsequently they managed to starve tens of millions afterwards in several missteps, and then righted themselves.

They then spent three to four decades lifting about thrice the US population out of extreme abject poverty, and then in the last 20 years catching up. And catch up they have; they are already the leaders in green technology and EVs, already manufacture some of their own chips, already have indigenous military aerospace capability, which they are now expanding to civilian use. They make almost everything in the average household.

reply
Their ASML and TSMC are...ASML and TSMC.
reply
Who says we won't just progress as well and they stay behind a couple of years?

Where is the evidence that China is catching up considered a fiat d accompli?

Do you presume that China is destined to always at least catch up in every sector or field ever? That stinks of Chinese Exceptionalism to me.

If they could just "catch up" they would, and whether we sell them chips wouldn't matter because they would want to create their own Nvidia and export chips and make money too.

reply
> Do you presume that China is destined to always at least catch > up in every sector or field ever? That stinks of Chinese > Exceptionalism to me.

Suppose you want to build something that requires technical knowledge (a GPU, a fighter jet, ...). You have engineers, but they don't yet know how to build it.

If no one on earth has ever built this thing, you need to consider the possibility that it can't be done at a cost you can pay. Perhaps it violates some law of physics, or it can't be manufactured without knowing some chemistry/physics that we are 100+ years from discovering.

If a company in some other country is already building this thing, you can be sure it is possible to build it. That is a critical piece of information! It means you don't need to discover (much) new physics. It means you can buy/steal a working copy and look at it to learn about it. It means there are engineers you can hire/spy on to understand their design process. It means you can more easily convince a bank/government to fund development, as they have proof your goals are achievable.

Inventing a thing is much harder than inventing a clone of a thing. The idea that China doesn't have the people and organization to copy things other countries make is the opposite of Chinese Exceptionalism. It is the belief that the Chinese are uniquely incapable of engineering work. This is obviously not true.

reply
> fiat d accompli

The phrase is “fait accompli”, without a D, and is French for “accomplished feat”.

reply
> Where is the evidence that China is catching up considered a fiat d accompli?

The ever closing gap between the capabilities of frontier models vs chinese open weight models.

reply
Models aren’t everything. You need physical infrastructure at scale for inference, which is where the economic power comes from. Chinese hardware makes double the heat and needs at least double the energy input.
reply
And 3 years ago they were producing no heat and required no energy because they did not exist. Clearly they are catching up
reply
even if true, luckily for them, double the heat and double the energy input aren't an issue, and they have more physical infrastructure at scale too
reply
It's like the ever closing gap between the smartest kid in class and the kid who sits behind him copying his work.

That's not a strategy that leads to actually being the best.

reply
Exactly. And we better keep it this way. The fact that we can block them from copying us today means that they will try that much harder to come up with their own answers. Remember, they are miles ahead in manufacturing hardware and the software is not a problem anymore. Whatever moat cuda represented is gone now.
reply
This is good evidence sanctions don't really work. Critical sectors will find ways around them and it only punishes the rank and file working class. If China or any sanctioned nation wanted those nvidia chips, it has ways to get them. So the military and intelligence get them, but the people don't. Same with sanctions on Russia now, which has not significantly slowed its military machine, but in fact its military machine is coming out with constant innovations (new Gerans, better EW, more spy sats, etc). I remember seeing a post mortem of some Russian drone. It had a Jetson chipset Russia was not supposed to be able to get. I imagine the smuggling market is far bigger than we might think and sanctions far less effective than we think.

Same when you sanction food imports. The elites who make decisions will always be fed. Sanctions are almost always an attack on the working class who do not make the high-level political decisions the sanctions are trying to address. Not to mention the idea of "making life hard on them so they revolt" almost never works.

Sanctions should be a bigger conversation. They are almost never needed and especially trade tariffs and such are always used for the most corrupt cronyism.

reply
> Same when you sanction food imports. The elites who make decisions will always be fed. Sanctions are almost always an attack on the working class who do not make the high-level political decisions the sanctions are trying to address. Not to mention the idea of "making life hard on them so they revolt" almost never works.

There’s also the minor quibble that restricting food exports to starve another country are illegal under international law.

reply
Nobody is starving in Russia (at least unavoidably).

That sanctions only harm the civilian economy is not an argument against them. Kinetic sanctions agains oil refining are also primarily impacting the general population and the military have enough oil. But they still impact the ability of the Russians to fund the war. Civilian infrastructure and economic assets are used by militaries too.

reply
[flagged]
reply
I watched the interview. I think the arguments made sense. People get heated talking about the colour of an object they can both see. I wouldn't want to project reasons for heated behaviour.

For the record I think that less than half of the people who thought the dress was black and gold were being influenced by the Chinese government to take that position.

reply
Yeah call me crazy but I don't see the need to sell the cutting edge chips to China if you're already a trillion dollar company. Sure more money is nice, but not living under the thumb of a global dictatorship is nice too.

If the sale is not about money or share price then maybe it's ideological.

reply
20% more revenue is a lot of money and makes Huang wealthier since he owns a large piece of the company.
reply
LMAO Dwarkesh is stupid ass
reply
He was so unhinged and angry. Ppl just ignored it at the leather jacket glazing time s
reply
> The image of Nvidia advocating for exports of GPUs to china while compromised by an allegedly Chinese agent is the real issue here.

OK sure .. obviously sleeping with Chinese agent is a security issue .. very bad .. but Nvidia's position on the export ban was sound. The export ban does not make sense. In fact, it is counterproductive because it closes a huge market to Nvidia and makes China less reliant on US Tech - forcing them to accelerate development of homegrown GPU business.

reply
there are many sound positions that are illegal, so it's kind of irrelevant
reply
Hold on here ..

If Nvidia was skirting the law, then they should held accountable for that.

If Nvidia merely held a position that the particular law is, say, counter-productive and lobbied against it (but followed it) - what's illegal about that?

reply
Has anybody argued against your second point? Feels like a straw man.
reply
> If Nvidia was skirting the law, then they should held accountable for that.

in corporate america haha

reply
But had he paid his Trump tax? Perhaps he’s not one of the elect!
reply
> The image of Nvidia advocating for exports of GPUs to china

As a business, why shouldn't they advocate for export to a relatively huge market? It is an expansion for them and from a business perspective completely expected.

reply
The advocacy is not the problem. The problem is that, once the ban was in place, they skirted the ban.
reply
Didn't everyone already know that China was buying Nvidia GPUs?

Is the problem that Nvidia was not making it as hard as it should have?

Realistically, how much does that even matter?

reply
Which is not what the comment being replied to said at all.
reply
You intentionally cut off the why here.
reply
They should and there’s nothing wrong with only advocating. The problem is that it wasn’t just advocating but (possibly) knowingly subverting the export controls
reply
Well its suspicious. If they were onoy advocating then thats free speech, but if they also skirted the ban, then its then kinda admitting to it
reply
Turns out there are laws and regulations that restrict one’s ability to lobby for foreign interests as both a public and private individual. Read about NJ Senator Bob Menendez which is a particularly egregious example.
reply
That feels like it should be unconstitutional.
reply
Let's export rockets, F-35s, Typhoons, Rafales', Gripens, jet turbines.

China should have infiltrated ASML, not much they can do without them until they get the blueprints. Unlikely they aren't doing it already.

reply
> rockets, F-35s, Typhoons, Rafales', Gripens, jet turbines

these are actual weapons, does anyone use GPUs to kill humans?

reply
They can be part of the "kill chain", yes.
reply
There was the kerfuffle with Dario Amodei and Pete Hegseth, who declared Anthropic a supply chain risk to the US. IMO, yes. Killer robots don't run on one 5090 :)

There is more spelunking to that situation, but that's a different thread.

reply
Also that its intertwined with asking the corrupt administration to relax export regulations
reply
The image is not a problem. That image has existed for months already. The problem is that Huang lost the tenuous protection that Trump and Lutnick agreed to give him so he could avoid jail. On that basis, investors are now scared the company might suddenly be under investigation for export violations.

https://www.axios.com/2026/11/11/trump-lutnick-nvidia-china-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-jail-le...

reply
Guessing Trump was talking about Jensen on 60 minutes this weekend when he said th DOJ called someone leading a major AI company and said "get ready to go to jail" 24:18 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2aC8lAOQbg&t=1458s

reply
And not that Nvidia is absolved of responsibility but it does make it a little easier if it's the new leadership in the hot seat for those things being like "yeah we did some naughty stuff but it was the last guy and we're working on hard on getting it all cleaned up."
reply
The thing is China itself has no incentive to have their companies skirt the export ban. The whole saga is just completely ironic and incredibly unorganic. The alleged "spy" and her firm Megaspeed was doing export circumventing mechanisms to China not because the CCP was allegedly pushing her to do so, in fact it was a counter-reaction to how restrictive the Chinese customs became to importing Nvidia while the corresponding customers are hungry for that compute that is piling up in the ports. China is doing a zero-sum policy where every American chip that gets passed to their tech companies is one less domestic/chinese, which equates less money for R&D and catch up. So something very strange going on here, along with the timing, in time where Anthropic is preparing for an IPO and briefly after the midterms where the median voter rejected AI wholesale. I suspect this might have been a long game to turn the man down that is standing for open-source and the freedom to build AI. Heck epstein was having a ring of elites diddling minors and nothing scandalous came out of it.

All the regulators that kickstarted this dumb export controls in 2022, which in-turn made the american AI-stack weaker vs China, while also using doomer-fud about safety must feel glorious right now.

Sad day for developers.

reply
as always, any slither of facts skewing from the narrative gets downvotes before a single comment pointing out where it's wrong never change hn
reply
> Nvidia advocating for exports of GPUs to china while compromised

I doubt it has anything to do with it really. China is a huge market and by not exporting to China they were missing out on tens to hundreds of billions in revenue. Any CEO would have advocated the same.

reply
Considering the incredibly high demand for GPUs, they would have sold them regardless. All those sales do is increase demand and push prices up.

Particularly in the current political moment, saying essentially "we were using high demand in a market we can't legally sell in to increase prices for American customers" is not a good look.

(Yes,obviously, not all of this is Nvidia's doing, and demand at this volume through smuggling/front companies would still affect the legitimate market. But being an active participant in it is not a good look.)

reply
There's speculation that Trump knew about the Chinese spy and Nvidia donated $25M to the White House Ballroom in October 2025.

Even if this is just a coincidence, Jensen himself came out and said he donated to the ballroom, but kept the amount hidden. In internal documents, Jensen and Nvidia said to keep the amount hidden and it only came out due to disclosure documents from the government.

reply
Trump went on 60 Minutes and said as much

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think that the risk is not nearly as real as it-- as they talk. And I think the risk can be managed. And it's managed, you know who? By who? The DOJ. We had a situation where somebody was reported to us to be doing something bad with AI. We called them very strongly and said, "Get ready to go to jail. Please give your wife a kiss good night."

ROSS DOUTHAT: Who was this person?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I can't tell you--

ROSS DOUTHAT: Or this company?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I can't tell you. But we said-- "Do you like the color orange because get rid --" said, "Go home right now. See your wife and children. Give 'em a kiss good night, and--"

ROSS DOUTHAT: If--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --"that's the story because--"

ROSS DOUTHAT: If the Democrats--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --"because tomorrow morning--"

ROSS DOUTHAT: --wanted--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --"you're goin' to jail."

ROSS DOUTHAT: If the-- if they--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let me tell you--

ROSS DOUTHAT: --wanted to make a deal--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --this person--

ROSS DOUTHAT: --to put that (UNINTEL)--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --this person totally changed everything. Totally. "Yes, sir. Yes, sir--"

ROSS DOUTHAT: "Yes, sir"?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Okay--

ROSS DOUTHAT: Was it a leader of a major AI company?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: One of the big ones. Yeah.

ROSS DOUTHAT: Okay.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: One of the big ones. And--

ROSS DOUTHAT: If the Democrats--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --and-- and I don't think--

ROSS DOUTHAT: --said, "We wanna put th-- we wanna--"

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --I don't--

ROSS DOUTHAT: --"codify this into law--"

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --I don't think it was--

ROSS DOUTHAT: --would you work with them--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --done maliciously. But it coulda been malicious, but--

---

This is what losing the Rule of Law looks like by the way. The sitting president is on TV saying that he found out someone rich and powerful is suspected of wrong doing serious enough to get a call from the president threatening him with prison, but that that's the punishment. Once that rich and powerful person bent the knee, said "Yes sir" with the right tone of voice, all was forgiven.

Equal Justice under Law means that we shouldn't punish people we don't like with harsher sentences it also means that wealth and power shouldn't be sufficient to skirt the law.

We often speak of a two-tiered justice system, but I've never seen the president go on TV and tell America in no uncertain terms, it exists, I'm a part of it, and it went very well, he said "Yes sir" just the right way and so you don't need to worry about it.

reply
$25M to sell billions of GPUs to China

cost of doing business. kiss the ring, get the blessing, make fat stacks -- illegally.

reply
These "donations" are just par for the course (to use an expression from the current president's favorite sport)...
reply
I’m aware, Apple and other companies donated too. What I found odd was the lengths Jensen and Nvidia went to hide the amount. Other companies came out and said how much they donated.
reply
Ok Mr. Both Sides, show me the donations to Biden's gilded ballroom.
reply
I should have made it clearer that I was only both-sidesing it when it comes to the donors, not to the recipient...
reply
Oh! That explains why Trump was so sympathetic to Jensen : "He is suffering. Poor man. He is such a nice guy. And his family… but he is suffering greatly."

Corrupt from top to bottom.

reply
he's also probably empathetic towards men who have publicly been caught cheating on their wives, for obvious reasons

birds of a feather, and all that

reply
So directly colluding with Russia hasn't taken Trump down, but maybe allowing prohibited exports to China in exchange for money will?

The audit on the main contractor for that "ballroom" must be wild. I guess that auditor is going to make a pretty penny.

reply
Trump has several protections- #1 is that as chief executive he gets to decide who our friends and enemies are to begin with…
reply
No, he doesn't. Congress has abdicated this power up to now during Trump 2 because the GOP are total lickspittle sycophants. The Democrats will be spineless cowards -- at least the older generation -- but they won't be total pushovers on this front.
reply
Where did I say this will bring Trump down? Maybe Trump gave the go ahead as long as he gets his cut?
reply
You didn't say that, I was speculating in response to your comment.
reply
Especially on the Trump admin having knowledge for an entire year, and not acting on that information in any significant way.

It's not just NVIDIA that's extremely weak on China, the entire Executive branch is both weak and incompetent on what they claim is a chief concern, and Congress has been completely absent on the oversight role that it should be performing according to the US Constitution.

The incompetence and/or corruption is inexcusable. Teapot Dumb Scandal.

reply
Maybe GPU's will get cheaper then, that would be nice.
reply
I can think of several more urgent topics for congressional hearings than that honestly...
reply
> the affairs are not the reason he is being fired

The second one -- affair with a direct report -- is what he is being fired for. This one is hard for the board to ignore as it directly violates HR rules.

As for the ban for national security reasons, the ban is not super useful because it only prevents hardware from being physically imported into China. If the hardware is physically located in Singapore and Chinese researchers use those machines remotely, the US does not ban that it. If so how meaningful is the ban?

reply
> directly violates HR rules

> ban for national security reasons

These don't sound like they are on the same order of magnitude in terms of severity?

reply
The first can be objectively and quickly ruled as violating company policy. The second has to go through a process -- did Jensen knowingly violate national security policy, and if so how significant was it?
reply
Not the _only_ reason, sure. However, it's quite common when executives have an affair they will get fired. I think that's just the reality. If you publicly humiliate your family and the business, you're out...
reply
I was on the leadership team of a startup that is now public, during that build something like that happened (almost exactly the same as this NVIDIA situation sans the spy stuff), there were effectively 5 of us involved in what the outcome should be and it basically came down to: me and another guy didn't want to sit on a leadership team with someone who exercised judgement that way, to the point that it was me and the other guy or affair person, so affair person was out, even tho it was very painful for the business. Also, I don't think what I just described is particularly uncommon.
reply
I have worked at a larger company where the CEO did something similar and across the company all anyone could ask was "why would you do something that dumb", which is not a great way for people to feel about the person supposedly leading the company.
reply
this is something i am probably too european to understand...
reply
At the end of the day, it's also just too simplistic.

Humans don't have some kind of overall "morality" or "judgment" setting that applies equally to all areas of life, where a failing in one area translates to failings in other areas.

You can be an amazing CEO and a terrible father. You can have the best judgment in the world around mothering, and abysmal judgment in business. Most importantly, you can be totally trustworthy in the realm of business, yet not in romance.

The idea that there is this binary switch, where someone is either perfectly trustworthy in all contexts, or else you can no longer trust them in any context, is just not an accurate understanding of how real human beings work. It's not supported by modern psychology.

reply
The affair isn't the issue, or at least not the only issue, it's who he had the affair with.

At the end of the day Jensen chose to have an affair with a senior officer of a company strongly suspected of bypassing trade restrictions and should have known that it would be a terrible look for Nvidia and himself. Even if he didn't suspect her of being an agent of China, even if he didn't believe the allegations against Mega speed, even if he had no intentions of passing confidential information or aiding in bypassing trade restrictions. He knew it would carry the appearance of all those things.

That is the unforgivable lapse in judgement.

reply
"you can be totally trustworthy in the realm of business, yet not in romance."

If you can't adhere to the terms of a voluntarily-entered personal contract with a person to whom you've promised utter faithfulness, why should I believe you'll be trustworthy with regard to some boring, impersonal business contracts?

reply
yes, that exactly the point. i want my colleagues to behave correctly on the job - i don't care if they have 3 boyfriends or cheat on their partner. it's not the point. it can be fun to gossip around the coffee machine, but that's about it. nobody should be fired for having an affair.
reply
This is more than an affair though. This is an affair with someone he has a business relationship with and thus it becomes the interest to the business. There are many many cases where someone give business favors to the person they are having an affair with.

My company is willing to hire my wife, but she wouldn't be allowed to work for me, nor I her.

reply
If he’d had an affair with his physical therapist absolutely no one would care and he wouldn’t be out- it’s the totality of his actions and his extreme lack of judgement at issue.
reply
You should be fired if you're having an affair with a spy, or with someone who reports to you.
reply
How do you know you aren’t?
reply
By not having an affair with anyone?
reply
You're too European to understand infidelity? Must be French!

- Signed, another European

reply
i understand infidelity, i don't understand who would care on the job. also, not french :)
reply
If he was French, this would be “oui, et?”
reply
Yeah it's insane how many people are like "bro affairs are totally normal!" (they're not) or "affairs have nothing to do with the business!" (of course they do)

Look at the NVDA stock chart. There you go! That's why affairs are relevant to business! Business is always about trust, and someone who isn't deserving of their own spouse's trust certainly isn't deserving of anyone else's.

reply
(Agreeing, with an asterisk.)

Markets care about predictability.

To that end, it's the secret and the reveal of that secret that's the issue for a leader. If a CEO is open about his socially-unacceptable behavior from the beginning, there's no shock to absorb.

reply
Yep that's an even better point. Though I would say there's a distinction between socially-unacceptable and untrustworthy. Being forthcoming both limits surprise (per your point) and mitigates the trust component of deviance.
reply
> Yeah it's insane how many people are like "bro affairs are totally normal!" (they're not) or "affairs have nothing to do with the business!" (of course they do)

Why? I'm playing a bit devil's advocate here, but why? Because society think it's bad and a leader should be associated with positive views? Because if they got caught they are not smart enough to be the leader?

Why just this specific thing is to be considered? Why, for example, all the Musk's "extravagances" are not ground for a CEO termination? I'm pretty sure many other CEOs have many of those "extravagances" and manage to keep their position but yet, if you have an affair, you're 100% toasted.

Maybe I don't understand enough the US culture.

reply
> Why, for example, all the Musk's "extravagances" are not ground for a CEO termination?

This has less to do with the relative social morality of his behavior, and rather that he has more control over the boards of his companies, and his personality represents a larger percentage of the perceived values of his companies.

Meaning that the desire and leverage for shareholders or the board to actually punish him is significantly less. Shareholders would potentially be evaporating trillions in speculative market value that is not backed up by Tesla or SpaceX's actual business fundamentals.

And any shareholders who disagree with his behavior have had plenty of time to leave and take their earnings by now, which means that the remaining shareholders are a self-selecting set who is okay with his behavior as long as it keeps making them money.

reply
One part trustworthiness, one part likeability, one part risk aversion. Some companies have very unlikable CEOs but they are otherwise effective enough to get by.

In this case, Huang hit all three. Changing CEOs is also a good way to get the media coverage over faster, or at least change the narrative in the pubic (and investors) minds.

If it were just an affair, I doubt he would have lost his job. It wasn't, though, and the other circumstances- potentially dodging export controls and abusing a role of power over a subordinate- came with far too much heat, so to speak.

Also, affairs make for much more entertaining gossip than the other items, so it's probably natural that that aspect gets talked about more.

reply
Going through dating, marriage, having children, growing a family, co-parenting children is a massive time and emotional investment (for most people who take it seriously). A large part of, at least Western, society is built on this concept of spousal trust. It's part of the tax code, its part of the legal code (spousal privilege), it's part of our moral fabric, it's a cornerstone of many religions. Breaking that is a huge betrayal of our collective societal moral understanding.
reply
Right, and because he was willing to break a commitment that serious it de-values other commitments he's made, including those more directly relevant to the business.
reply
gosh we need another 68
reply
What does that mean?
reply
1968
reply
All this coming from a country that elected twice as President a guy that married three times, led a very sexually promiscuous life, including the notorious boasting, and was accused of sexual misbehaviours by almost 30 women. Hilarious.
reply
The US system gives voters two options for president. Those options are chosen by parties, and parties make terrible choices.

In 2016, the choice was between Trump and Clinton. Clinton famously excused her husband's infidelity by calling the long list of women who claimed they were assaulted as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty".

In 2024, the choice was between Trump and Harris. Harris got into politics by being the mistress of a CA governor.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US presidential election offered a choice between someone who was moral and someone who was as immoral as our existing political class. But that has not happened in my lifetime, and I don't expect that to change.

reply
Trump's key innovation was shamelessness. It's good that Jensen feels shame here.
reply
It's not true that if you have an affair you're 100% toasted. And CEOs do get ousted for non-affair-like drama all the time.

But anyway a person's character is not cleanly separable between personal and professional life, so yeah affairs add (many) points to the "not to be trusted" column.

> Business is always about trust, and someone who isn't deserving of their own spouse's trust certainly isn't deserving of anyone else's.

reply
> Why?

It is a conflict of interest same as any other. If there is no conflict of interest then the company won't care. As the CEO of the company every other employee works for him and in turn he has power over them.

Society will not like you (in the US), but nothing more will happen.

reply
Musk controls his companies stock and can't be fired. If that wasn't the case I think his situation would be very different - he's an outlier in most ways. But there's no board to enforce anything on him.
reply
I think it often comes down to: do your actions match your words? In the instance above, when said exec joined our leadership team, they were well aware of the standard of conduct we expected, they agreed to them with their words, in fact. With us it was very simple, provided you're not a bigot, what you do on your own time is not our concern. However, what you do within our business is our concern. If you have intimate relations with anyone inside our company, even if consensual, you're no longer on our leadership team. Then, their actions did not match those words, when that is true, trust is gone. In society more generally I think this is true, there are people who we strongly expect their actions and words to match, and there are people who we know that isn't the case, and on some siding scale, we accept it (I didn't say acceptable). For example Fox News or CNN, marketing people, and to some degree apparently Elon Musk (in that people who matter to his success appear to believe they know where they stand with him). Groups typically have criteria/standards, if they change that, it may change the group to varying degrees, and that may be ok or not ok, depending on the group. I don't think this is an American thing or a European thing or anything like that, my understanding is this is a pretty human thing generally?

*Everything on a spectrum.

reply
Somehow, that wasn't an issue for Eric Schmidt, who was shagging some publicist while he was Google's CEO (and while happily married). Wonder why.
reply
Was she working at Google at that time and reporting directly to Eric Schmidt?
reply
That’s how it was for Sergei brin.
reply
For one, Schmidt left Google in 2011. Cultural acceptance of fucking subordinates has changed a lot since then.
reply
Considering that extramarital escapades didn't prevent the current US president from being elected twice - and quite recently at that - I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with cultural acceptance.
reply
You're "pretty sure" that you can isolate causality in multicausal and overdetermined systems by pointing to a few extreme examples?

I'm jealous!

reply
I can dumb it down even further for you.
reply
Yes, please do!

Seems like a real analytical breakthrough that I'd legitimately love to learn more about.

reply
You cannot tell from the NVDA stock crash if it's because the CEO had an affair, or because NVIDIA illegally sold GPUs to China and is in huge trouble.
reply
Or because the current stock value is highly inflated and the bubble is starting to pop.
reply
One of the reasons this behavior is problematic in general is the potential for blackmail. It's not even really a statement about morality, just an acknowledgement that somebody who wants to keep things hidden is going to be beholden to the people who know the secrets.

"It's not the crime, it's the coverup."

reply
Jensen went to many high profile parties with this woman. I don't see where he's trying to even hide it. Even the kiss was made out in public, not like a hotel room.

Also, an affair is only blackmail material in a society of prudes. I recall the story about a president who was confronted with condemning photos of his activities by CIA agents, and he pretty much encouraged the agents to publish the photos.

reply
> Also, an affair is only blackmail material in a society of prudes

No? All it requires is for Jensen to want to remain with his wife and for his wife to be willing to divorce him if she finds out he has an affair.

Or, even if we suppose he doesn’t care about his wife’s feelings at all, he might be very incentivised by losing half of his assets in a divorce. It’s worth many, many millions to him.

Very little involvement from society in that one.

reply
186 thousand million.
reply
> Also, an affair is only blackmail material in a society of prudes.

You don’t have to be a prude to think cheating on a spouse is condemnable.

In general, it also doesn’t really matter what society thinks. You can just threaten to reveal the affair to the spouse. And even in the case the spouse doesn’t really care it’s fodder they can potentially use in a divorce to get a better deal.

One thing worth pointing out is that in this case in addition to the affair with the Chinese spy he was allegedly having an affair with a subordinate, which is always problematic.

reply
> affair is only blackmail material in a society of prudes

For better or worse, this is the world we live in.

reply
For worse.
reply
That's pretty wild. A society that doesn't value faithfulness to a spouse or looks the other way at sleeping with a subordinate is pretty sick imo.
reply
> I recall the story about a president who was confronted with condemning photos of his activities by CIA agents

Sukarno. "Project Happy Days", lol.

He (Sukarno) thought it was hilarious and sent copies to his friends.

CIA was pissed w/ him because he killed a lot of Communists but then started leaning to China and beefing with Malaysia, which irritated the British

reply
Apparently the KGB tried to honeypot him - and they were flabbergasted when he asked for copies of the photos. Apparently photos of him with multiple Russian women would bolster his machismo image back home?

Although if you read his Wikipedia page, he had many, many wives, some concurrently, and the youngest was 19...so it's probably true, lol.

Then you read about a certain EV company CEO and his escapades and repopulating the planet, and you don't know what to think.

Or Charlie Sheen...

I guess politicians, celebrities and CEOs are another world from us mere mortals.....

reply
It’s not just about humiliation. If your boss is sleeping with your coworker or someone on your team, how can you trust their decisions are grounded in fairness and logic. Sure, the world doesn’t work this way, and ceos are at a different realm than a mid level manager, but this is usually how HR defines things.
reply
It seems more common they get fired for either "with a subordinate" or "a relationship with a conflict of interest for the company".

There are many examples where the outed affair resulted in nothing material when neither of the above was true.

This case, seems to touch both.

reply
Reminds me of the Coldplay concert couple, which happened to be a CEO and head of HR. Head of HR! And what's more interesting is that they only got removed when the affair became public. At the same time the company was small potatoes so presumably less interesting to state actors.
reply
That is assuming there is a layer above the executive, which is not necessarily the case.

It is true for anything with a board, of course. But there is no rule mandating boards.

reply
Pretty sure all publicly traded companies in the US are required to have a board
reply
Several publicly traded companies have (or had) majority-owner CEOs, which makes it more than a little awkward for the board to fire them. I can't really see the board outing Zuckerberg under similar circumstances
reply
Zuckerberg protected himself from this scenario by starting off with an Asian wife.
reply
Most certainly, but the statement was

> If you publicly humiliate your family and the business, you're out

There is no "* only applies to publicly traded companies". Hence, it is incorrect.

The bigger point I am trying to make here being that not everything is investor-driven. People can run businesses without that. It annoys me greatly that HN regularly forgets that.

reply
In publicly-traded companies, the board is not the ultimate boss, though. That would be the shareholders. And, at Meta and many companies copying Meta's playbook who have IPO'd since (notably including Anthropic, though notably not including Nvidia), founder shares have so much voting power that the founders are effectively in complete control.

In theory, Nvidia shareholders, if dissatisfied with today's decision, could vote to oust the current board and replace it with people more sympathetic to Huang, who would, as their first decision, re-hire him as CEO, as would be their prerogative. This is... unlikely to happen.

None of the above is investment advice.

reply
It worked for Sam.
reply
Public companies in the US are required to have a board of directors. If they’re not a “controlled company” - i.e. no single person controls more than 50% - then a majority of the board are required to be independent, i.e. not employees, executives, or consultants to the company.
reply
> If you publicly humiliate your family and the business

I can hardly imagine anything more stupid than judging the aptitude of the CEO of a 5T$ business based on his private love life.

reply
I suspect so many of us see examples of corporate crime or even of corporate greed (legally) causing an incredible amount of damage that an affair feels trivial in comparison. That is especially true when the private family life of a CEO is private. The damage of the affair could be anything from devastating to the family to they were all but legally separated.
reply
Two wrongs don't make a right.

You should be concerned about corporate crime.

That doesn't change that there is a conflict of interest here and any company should fire someone who has a conflict of interest that they are not carefully managing to ensure they don't become real.

reply
This is not about his private love life. This is about a conflict of interest that happens to also involve his private love life.
reply
If you publicly humiliate your family and the business, you're out...

It's not entirely about humiliation.

Having an affair (or multiple, in this case) demonstrates poor decision making. You don't want someone who can't make wise choices running your company.

reply
We know nothing about Jensen's private life or if he humiliated his family here.

Marriages of 41+ years can get into any kind of dynamic.

reply
100%. While I do not condone his actions, publicly we do not know anything about his private life and the dynamics. Until there's a statement from his family, for all we know they may have been separated.

It's clearly the CN link and/or the cosying up with a customer that is the problem; the board would not care about his private life (and neither should the public, tbh).

And the open letter sounds more like it was written the way the public would expect a CEO to write.

reply
Then obviously his letter could've said as much. It didn't, ergo an interpretation of available evidence clearly indicates you are wrong.
reply
[dead]
reply
> or if he humiliated his family here.

His open letter about his infidelity seems to imply he has embarrassed his wife and family, have you read it?

reply
> His open letter about his infidelity seems to imply he has embarrassed his wife and family, have you read it?

He has also said so very many times in so very many ways that Nvidia was absolutely not involved in violation of export control laws regarding the export of its products to China. That -in fact- there was absolutely no smuggling going on and claims to the contrary were utterly baseless and without merit.

I agree with ohnnyApplePRNG's assertion that we know literally nothing about the private life and situation of Mr. Huang and his family.

reply
So because he lied when he denied certain allegations, you don't believe his admissions of guilt? That seems like an odd logical jump.

> we know literally nothing

He "literally" wrote about how his actions hurt his family, I'm not sure why there's a second account parroting the exact same phrase.

reply
This is incorrect. Even if they had a totally open relationship, it being public news across the world can be humiliating.
reply
We do actually know enough to know that the edge cases do not sufficiently apply here to arrive at the conclusion you're implying.
reply
We don't know, but it is overwhelmingly likely that he and his wife do not have an open marriage. Most people do not.
reply
> We know literally nothing about Jensen's private life or if he humiliated his family here.

Uh... but we do!

---

I owe my family and all of you an apology.

I was unfaithful to my wife. My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did. I am deeply sorry.

Throughout my life, my family has given me love and support. They deserve my honesty and loyalty. Instead, I let them down and damaged the life we built together. I take full responsibility for what I did and the hurt I caused, and I accept the criticism that comes with it.

To my wife and family: I love you. I know an apology cannot undo what I have done. I hope our family will heal and that, over time, I can earn back your trust.

To my colleagues at NVIDIA, including those I have worked alongside for decades, and to our board, partners, and shareholders around the world: you deserve better from me. Leading NVIDIA is the privilege of my life. My responsibility is to serve you and be worthy of your trust. I have fallen short of that responsibility. I am fully committed to NVIDIA and will work to earn back your confidence.

Regarding the national security concerns raised in news reports, NVIDIA’s Board of Directors has initiated an independent investigation. I support the investigation and will cooperate fully. I love our country and our company. I am committed to protecting NVIDIA and supporting America’s national security. I am proud and grateful to be an American.

My family bears no responsibility for my choices. I do. Please give them privacy.

Jensen

---

Source: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/a-message-to-our-company

reply
If he is actually a bi-furry with an understanding with his wife on 'affairs', do you think he'd say that? Or would he maintain the straight, family-friendly, investor-friendly front expected of him [by some people] in his position?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a promoter of monogamy.

I think it is naive to assume that such public statements are the whole truth of a matter.

People who fuck up a company (or have an affair, or get caught snorting drugs off a sex-worker) aren't really 'stepping back to spend more time with their families'. Historically the classic example of executive public statements.

reply
> If he is actually a bi-furry with an understanding with his wife on 'affairs', do you think he'd say that?

Yes, and it would have helped. CEOs have "exciting" relationships all the time, and folks seem entirely willing to accept this.

These are entirely different stories:

"My wife and I have a non-traditional relationship and would prefer to keep the specifics private, but no harm was caused by my actions."

"I was unfaithful to my wife. My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did. I am deeply sorry."

reply
People don’t realise that execs don’t actually write these messages usually.
reply
Perhaps, but it's also more common than not for affairs to hurt families, and the statement confirms that applied here.

If you have stronger evidence that the statement was untruthful when it said he hurt his family, you may present it.

Until such time, the statement strengthens the bayesian prior, which is that his affairs hurt his family, and thus that is what we can conclude. We need not be 100% confident to conclude this absent further evidence. >50% confidence suffices.

reply
no one cares who you put your dick into if the returns are good and there are no threats to the business. but he only fucked threats to the business.

he was fucking a spy

he was fucking one of his direct reports

what are two things you shouldn't ever do as a CEO of the biggest company in the world?

this wasn't Cindy the random waitress from the Palo Alto Ruth Chris', these were literally two people he should never be fucking

he put the company at risk of national security issues and HR lawsuits for what is otherwise painfully mid-tier pussy. he's gotta go.

reply
> for what is otherwise painfully mid-tier pussy.

This is an extremely unnecessary misogynistic comment.

reply
This is the kind of story that makes me think most critical leadership should be held by women. Grossly generalizing here, but I think women are inherently less corruptible than men in this manner, especially older women.

It’s unambiguously a good thing that the next NVIDIA CEO (even if just an interim CEO) is a woman, and that the AMD CEO is a woman.

reply
was it confirmed she was a spy? or is that just twitter rumors?
reply
It is the official allegation of the United States and other major governments. So that doesn't guarantee it but it is more than a rumor.
reply
Exactly. Jensen could have had ten high-priced escorts attending to him at home at every hour and there would be no issue.
reply
I dunno that executive looks rather top tier to me. Maybe you have different standards for late-40s extremely accomplished women.
reply
Famously, Mark Hurd made dubious expenses that were perceived negatively by the public (there were sexual harassment allegations) and was ousted as CEO from HP. Then Larry Ellison mocked HP and hired Mark as Oracle's President. So, some companies are worried about that, others aren't
reply
Hasnt Elon been jizzing around Silicon Valley for like years now ? I guess enforcing these guidelines requires an independent board.
reply
He isn't married?
reply
To be fair his marital status changes frequently so it can be hard knowing what happened when.
reply
deleted
reply
It's entirely possible that the board just wasn't that warm on Jensen in the first place. Not cold, not looking to be the tall poppy that gets cut down... but at least willing to give Jensen the boot if given the right push.

This is how things change. Slowly and then all at once. If the board were more in love with him, they'd probably have been willing to turn a blind eye for just a little while longer. No such luck for Jensen, but we make our own luck in these things.

reply
Not looking warm on a guy that synthesized five trillion dollars from nothing in the 90s is some high standards.
reply
Not sure how personal affairs humiliate your business
reply
They do when they're with a subordinate or a vendor, both of which he did. Add on "foreign agent" and you're done.
reply
They do in our puritanical culture.

In a Goffman Front Stage/Back Stage sense, you are supposed to keep the front stage presentation on the level of a pious monk or nun.

The irony to me is this just another asymmetrical advantage for Chinese culture.

reply
Trump was elected twice. I think there are other factors here.
reply
Maybe people are tired of that bullshit. The most powerful guy in business clearly felt empowered to let that facade go. I guess he just got a check for his experiment.
reply
Good executives go to Epstein island and do not get fired.
reply
I wonder where they are going now.
reply
Which is as it should be. First of all, marriage is a covenant. If someone cannot be trusted to keep his word on that, it's tough to trust him with power over thousands of employees and trillions of dollars. Second, I'm guessing the board asked Huang after the first affair's revelation whether there were more skeletons in his closet, and he said no. Lying to one's board is more than enough reason to be ousted.
reply
> marriage is a covenant

That's a very narrow view that's a function of one's religion, culture, and values.

When I was in school, (US) my very Catholic French teacher explained that his uncle, in France, had a mistress. His uncle's wife knew and was okay with it. What my teacher was explaining is that the culture around marriage varies considerably through the world, and you can't take for granted that what we were taught (monogamy) is the standard that others live to, or even expect from you.

reply
Yes, I can. The normalcy of a thing doesn't make it right. But this isn't really about whether absolute cultural relativism is appropriate or not. It's about a man who broke his word. Huang wed an American woman in America, not a French woman in France. Nothing about this situation indicates Huang's wife was remotely aware of nor alright with his philandery.
reply
> Huang wed an American woman in America

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that American culture is homogeneous: It's not.

reply
There's no major American subculture in which stepping out on your wife is "a good thing" or even "an okay thing". A vast majority of Americans poll consistently against adultery and it's often the most universally condemned action in surveys. Here's one example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/692801/adultery-cloning-seen-im...
reply
Wait till you hear about what wives get up to at “board game night” in San Jose.
reply
My mother had gotten "two wrongs don't make a right" through my head by about age four. It's still true. I don't know nor care what they're doing in San Jose.
reply
Seems like what they’re doing in North America kind of undercuts your assumptions.

Perhaps it’s you that is out of touch?

Both partners in this case know and/or participate, you don’t want drama at your games night after all. There is no wrong here, it turns out that many partners like seeing their partner have a great time.

reply
deleted
reply
From a religious perspective, sure. From an earthly perspective, you don't know what the other side was doing. Have you ever been married to a menopausal or a post menopausal woman? A marriage in which there is a permanent refusal to have sex can be annulled.
reply
> A marriage in which there is a permanent refusal to have sex can be annulled.

That’s not quite true. A more accurate statement would be: A marriage may be annulled in some U.S. states if one spouse entered the marriage with a concealed, permanent intention not to consummate it, and that intention constitutes fraud going to the essence of the marriage.

If the couple was having sex after marriage, and then one partner decided to cease having it some time later, that is generally not grounds for annulment.

If it were permitted, this would make many, if not most, late-stage marriages subject to annulment. People get sick and injured or just incapable in old age.

reply
Seems like some weird fundamentalist take. On its own it's purely a private matter between him and his wife (obviously the GPU smuggling stuff is a separate thing). Given that the affair has been semi public for years it's hard to imagine his wife didn't know about it anyway.
reply
If it's fundamentalist to hold a man to his word, then I suppose you can count me a fundamentalist. If he'll shatter trust with the person he purportedly loves most in the world, just what might he do to you, the customer or shareholder?
reply
> shatter trust with the person he purportedly loves most in the world

Well we don't know that, you are not legally required to love someone you are married to and I have no clue what their relationship is like or whether they have any sort of "arrangements". I could hardly care less really since its their private matter.

> just what might he do to you, the customer or shareholder?

I don't really see a correlation between those things. All sorts of immoral degenerates (e.g. Musk, (potentially) Gates and I assume plenty of other lesser known CEOs) have generated massive amounts of value for their shareholders.

reply
It may even be the case that immoral degenerates are the MOST suitable people to invest your money with.
reply
Tell me you have no clue how corporations are run without telling me. Furthermore Jensen wasn't some random executive otherwise this wouldn't be now top news all over the world.
reply
deleted
reply
Let’s be real here. Everyone making money out of NVIDIA was more than happy enough to go around the restrictions and see the prices go up due to Chinese demand.

Having these people saying otherwise is pure hypocrisy.

reply
Unless you are a competitor.
reply
Or Anthropic
reply
It's a good thing Congress doesn't just care about their opinions then.
reply
In what world is the modern US Congress a good regulator of these kinds of things? Half the people in the Capitol have a literal vested interest in the very companies they claim to be trying to keep on a leash (and I recognize that some of these are inverse instruments, my point still stands).
reply
My money is on the congress members - including the greatest stock trader of all times, Nancy Pelosi - having just sold their NVIDIA shares right before the spying was uncovered.
reply
The first affair was possibly survivable, although the cost of survival would be high for all involved.

The second affair was fatal to Jensen Haung. An affair with a direct report is generally a no-no in modern business and would have opened Nvidia up for all kinds of liability issues if they knew in any capacity. If he stayed it would have made a mockery of their code of conduct rules and opened Nvidia up to further legal issues.

reply
Musk has survived and brushed off much worse.

And Jensen isn't just any CEO, he is the founder and has run the company for thirty years.

He would have survived the affairs if it wasn't for the export control violation aspects.

reply
Musk controls 19.9% of voting power at Tesla, and more than 80% at SpaceX. Huang has about a 3.5% ownership stake in of Nvidia and that’s jointly controlled with his wife.
reply
Musk's companies have low quality boards, which is by design to make it almost impossible to fire him and the legacy of that should serve as a cautionary tale
reply
Cautionary tale for who?
reply
>NVIDIA has supposedly been skirting the export ban put in place by the previous administration.

That's not the reason either.

They never did it in a way that was technically legal iirc. And the new administration allowed the exports later anyway and lifted the AI ban on July 2025.

Even she was a spy, the idea is that what? I can understand her snooping for fresh confidential info, in that, case, but what would her role be the sanctions? That just because he got her as gf, he made nvidia evade exports as a favor?

As if it was his personal bypass and not what the nvidia board wanted for the $$$?

They're likely worried about the optics of it, and what a Democrat administration, or increased power, would do to Nvidia stocks with such scandal as leverage.

reply
I agree that this is a more likely explanation, given the AI arms race between the US and China.

I think NVIDIA lose more things by firing Jensen.

reply
Screw him.

He put US national security at risk just because between his wife and his other mistress, he couldn't keep it in his pants.

There are some things more important than stock valuation.

reply
Possibly, I am a bit tired of the national security argument with hand waving vagueness. It’s generally unfalsifiable because details would be a national security risk. Meanwhile we have seen National Security concerns that were pure lies once we get sufficiently far past it.
reply
Or, he was right by advocating for letting China buy Nvidia chips to keep China dependent on US.
reply
You actually fell for the propaganda?
reply
Yes you see there are various types of national security. For example, there is the national security when a country that touted capitalism and free trade for years suddenly finds itself beat at capitalism by someone else, that's a big national security issue. Then suddenly free trade is evil and a danger and a national security issue.
reply
This is the funniest thing to see it happen so blatantly. “National security”, what a joke.
reply
> There are some things more important than stock valuation.

Given that the economic growth of the USA during the last few years was entirely due to this man and his technologies, I'm going to say nah.

China having access to GPUs is not a national security threat. It's an economic threat. Not sure why people treat China as some enemy nation. It's just a competitor.

reply
Frontier AI may help China in a military conquest of Taiwan: their stated ambition.
reply
> He put US national security at risk

It is far far worse than that - he lied to shareholders.

reply
> he couldn't keep it in his pants.

Or maybe he just simply wanted to make more money by increasing demand for Nvidia's GPUs by tacitly allowing for them to be exported to China though Singapore.

reply
Why can't it be all of the above? I'm disturbed by the number of posts I'm seeing around social media downplaying the affairs as if this is normal behavior that should be encouraged or allowed. He slept with someone who worked directly under him, under what universe would he be allowed to stay at Nvidia? That's absurd.
reply
Cheating on your wife may be despicable behavior, but it doesn’t warrant firing the founding CEO of one of the most important companies on earth, especially considering how much is at stake economically, including how reliant the U.S. economy has been on AI build out spending. On the other hand, cheating on your wife and endangering national security at the same time is a different story.
reply
> He slept with someone who worked directly under him

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

reply
I said this on the thread this morning/yesterday. It is impossible for JH to speak about China with any credibility going forward. That alone made it impossible for him to remain CEO. Add to that, everything he's said about China in the past will now be scrutinized and questioned if he was influenced in some way.

If it was just affairs, he could likely have survived this.

reply
Only by the shallow thinking - there can be more than one reason to espouse a position and they can all be valid.
reply
Links to the reporting?

“Sold to China” can mean a lot of things including legitimate entities in Malaysia/Singapore selling cloud computing to companies in those countries that then resell compute to entities in China. Export bans on gpus are inherently impossible to make work unless you police the eventual destination of every byte exiting a datacenter.

reply
If it were just about the export ban, then why leak the affairs? US intelligence (which serves US corporate power only) has decided to put this guy out to pasture by any means necessary. That's the reason for this faux moral outrage. They want to make sure there's no chance he makes it out the other side.

Presumably his replacement will be subservient "enough".

reply
>then why leak the affairs

Allows the influence of selection of next CEO that is more aligned with long term Chinese goals. Or punishment for not going along with the plan.

Im not much for conspiracy theories, but if you think about it, in the state that US is in, there is absolutely zero chance US will do anything retaliatory to China if they do spy shit on US soil. China is basically free to play spy games. My guess is that they have their fingers in Anthropic, Amazon, OpenAI, SpaceX, and AMD, and probably other agents within NVIDIA in high places.

Their game is basically rearrange the pieces so eventually China becomes the world number one superpower, while keeping the status quo as much as possible

reply
This comment yesterday [1] indicated that Megaspeed was not on the blocked entity list, but that NVidia voluntarily hasn't sold to them since June 2025.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50464121

reply
It'll be a relative slap on the wrist. The US is not going to destroy one of the companies keeping it competitive on the AI landscape right now. Worst case, it is a heavy slap and some individuals go to jail, but the company will be fine.

But yeah, the affairs are probably just a last straw.

reply
Why? Because the government want to maintain the American advantage in GPU chips and AI? This move tips the scales in favour of China. Right now there is tens of billions of dollars of Nvidia GPUs sitting on the dock in Hong Kong because China government blocked them. They think it's more important to support their new domestic GPU industry than to have the best models today trained on nvida.
reply
or....they figured out that the chips were ...um... untrustworthy
reply
They were allowed to sell to china, just not their top models. It was widely known that china acquired those indirectly.

What changed is the publicity about the affair. So this is about the affair.

reply
Or the publicity about the affair put a brighter light on the thing that was already "widely known" and increased the need for a response.
reply
It's widely known that luxury cars stolen in the west end up shipped to the UAE, where they're resold, frequently to Russian customers.

So for example, a stolen Porsche could end up being driven by a Russian oligarch.

Porsche is not on the hook for this. The car was stolen by a third party.

If a Porsche exec instead had sex with the thief and tossed them the keys to a brand new 911, then they might be on the hook for violating sanctions.

reply
There does seem to be a sway in the reporting towards his relationship with an employee and not the whole trade ban and spy stuff. I'm not sure why that is
reply
Think of this current fracas like this: Americans have a strange penchant to define themselves by sexuality. So, they are easily distracted into a trance by their hormonal and prurient interests for extended periods.

A famous guy had an island and it was extrajudicially a place where alot of powerful people internationally could come to his island and interchange info and ideas and make deals and things could occur and he collected up all that kind of stuff, including arms deals and the sex stuff.

But Americans are only right now aware of the sex stuff in what he collected up.

The sex stuff is essentially a distraction, the oily film on the deeper ocean of truth.

reply
The green username is always very telling
reply
Probably A/B testing. People click the salacious stuff, so that's what gets emphasized.
reply
I'll plug our Pretrained episode from Monday here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N97DW8gfCnI - this chip export goes back years, through shell companies that are very easily traceable to Alibaba.
reply
What happens if all the money in the system circulating through AI companies turns out to be ill-gotten gains?
reply
just another day in paradise [sips daiquiri]
reply
> I hope people understand that the affairs are not the reason he is being fired

People refuse to understand it. Every single thread is full of the same comments. People are obsessed with culture wars.

reply
History will look back at this and see Jensen was right to do this.

Underestimating China under this export ban is a huge historical blunder of epic proportions. China will develop all their own chips and put everyone out business eventually.

reply
He committed what looks like some light treason. The fact that he had an affair with a Chinese intelligence asset who helped the CCP bypass import restrictions is why he had to go.
reply
It is currently not possible to commit treason because the United States is not at war.
reply
Yes we are. He just needs to lay off the super hot Iranian spies. Which, good luck.
reply
We've had insatiable demand for Nvidia excluding China, I doubt they would have run that kind of legal risk.
reply
there are many reasons for that kind of risk to have been taken. many reasons for a patriot to have been compelled or coerced to take it
reply
well...and I am not generally a theorist but

dark ops [well, maybe these are really very bright out in the open ops...!!!] may have taken an opportunity and now the operation is at its close, the data is reduced, and the devices utilized are being obsoleted, and operatives burned

we US citizens should not let naivete overrule the gravity of this technology race, on the order of the nuclear arms race

reply
The thing is China itself has no incentive to have their companies skirt the export ban. The whole saga is just completely ironic and incredibly unorganic. The alleged "spy" and her firm Megaspeed was doing export circumventing mechanisms to China not because the CCP was allegedly pushing her to do so, in fact it was a counter-reaction to how restrictive the Chinese customs became to importing Nvidia while the corresponding customers are hungry for that compute that is piling up in the ports. China is doing a zero-sum policy where every American chip that gets passed to their tech companies is one less domestic/chinese, which equates less money for R&D and catch up.

So something very strange going on here, along with the timing, in time where Anthropic is preparing for an IPO and briefly after the midterms where the median voter rejected AI wholesale. I suspect this might have been a long game to turn the man down that is standing for open-source and the freedom to build AI. Heck epstein was having a ring of elites diddling minors and nothing scandalous came out of it.

All the regulators that kickstarted this dumb export controls in 2022, which in-turn made the american AI-stack weaker vs China, while also using doomer-fud about safety must feel glorious right now.

Sad day for developers.

reply
They did not even need to sell them physically to China. Many of them ended up in Malaysian datacenters that rented them to China.

Gamer Nexus looked at it like a year ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3xQaf7BFI

reply
How do you know?
reply
I think thats correct, I was at GTC in berlin a couple of weeks ago, a number of Chinese firms that are on the export control list were present and had booths… so perhaps this was all rather blatant.
reply
It will be interesting to see if there are criminal proceedings. If you or I violated ITAR or CMMC/NIST 800 there would be.
reply
Do we know yet what the potential consequences may be? Legally or from a market/business standpoint?
reply
The affair is what led to this, demonstrating why it actually should matter if your CEO is having one. Ethics and trust should matter.
reply
They didn’t sold the chips directly to China, they sold them to Megaspeed and they sold the compute to China.
reply
It looks like there's quite a bit of them that made their way directly to China, and that they knew that was where they would eventually end up.
reply
I've heard rumours that 20-40% of Nvidia's revenue was coming from sanctioned chips that make their way into Chinese data centres. If true, it's not small potatoes.
reply
Wilful blindness is not a valid defense
reply
I think they were selling to Malaysian shell companies to China.
reply
The previous and current administration.

This is obviously something that has been postponed for after the midterms.

reply
> Whether you agree or disagree with the ban, it exists and Jensen&NVIDIA are in a world of trouble if this comes to light.

Law has to be enforced by human beings to be meaningful. Donald Trump, who is the one who put the export control in place and has the power to make any legal trouble vanish, has very loudly signaled that he does not care and Jensen/Nvidia will not be in any hot water.

reply
Being compromised kinda does seem like a reason to be fired. It seemed well known he was doing it since there are plenty of photos over a few years? So it’s more she was a honeypot.
reply
I mean having an affair with someone who works below in the company hierachy, is also a huge problem (if the thing about second affair is correct)
reply
deleted
reply
Does it mean we will have mass produced cheaper graphics cards? Akin to flagship killer mobile phones and other hardware? Sounds good.
reply
>From all the reporting I've read, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that NVIDIA sold to China despite the export ban. I'd love to be wrong

This was blatantly obvious. Do we really think Malaysia was using Billions in GPUs on some secret AI project?

reply
The affairs are absolutely part of it, they show a dishonest pattern of behavior.
reply
I am not sure I can agree. Perhaps this was the underlying reason. Perhaps others wanted to frame him and launched a media campaign. But from what I can see, at the least on the surface, to me it looks as if he was fired for liking too many women at the same time, at the least one of which might be a possible spy. This may all be fake-reasons on top to cover underlying real causes, but to me right now it looks as if the girls cost him the job here.
reply
> Jensen&NVIDIA are in a world of trouble if this comes to light

Are they though? As long as they're in the good graces of Trump, is the Justice Department going to do anything about it?

reply
Are they still in Trump's good graces? Sure, they gave him money before. But can they promise him more money again? He's pretty quick to dispose of people when they're inconvenient too.
reply
Um hard negative to what you are saying. It is absolutely fundamental to the issue -- its compounds the issues around assessing Jensen's judgement.

This story has more to it that will come to light .. I'm sure of it.

reply
Jensen is Taiwanese. Nvidia's chips are made in Taiwan, as are all the most advanced chips in the world -- including the chips in Apple and AMD products -- by TSMC. China wants to re-absorb Taiwan into itself, partially because they cannot match TSMC's geometries and they desperately need those geometries.

Speculation here, but it's conceivable that China gave Jensen an ultimatum: Give us your chips and we'll delay invading your homeland for a little while longer. Of course this would have been implied since China never says anything so direct.

reply
Highly unlikely that China would direct a military threat at a tech CEO.

The more sane explanation is that Jensen Huang just wanted to capture more revenue.

reply
Do you think he might get the death sentence for treason?
reply
deleted
reply
Fuck no. Jensen did no such thing. He actually hasn’t been charged with a single crime. You’re outright hallucinating here.

The board is voting him out because they can AT any TIME.

If the board liked him, they would wait for the charges to go through. But they don’t like him. Tons of people cheat on their wives and husbands and I’m sure even the fucking board has people that have.

The board doesn’t like him and has been waiting for a way to oust him while not looking incompetent. Why they don’t like him I don’t actually know.

Maybe because he’s Asian? Maybe this is an internal op by the US government to get someone else up there? I don’t know. But I can guarantee that everything your reading is a cover story. There are underlying forces and motivations here at work that we are not able to know.

reply
A lot of people in this industry have gotten it into their heads over the last 25 years that if you create enough value, you get to ignore things like "rules", "laws" and "common sense".

Part of me is hopeful after this. Huang did something that was, at the very least, profoundly stupid, and just short of treason at worst. However, I'm also filled with dread, because I know that this means that there will be even more of an effort by founders to make sure they're immune from consequences from boards if they go public. You already see this at Meta and with Zuckerberg.

We need real reforms on corporate governance that make this sort of situation - a board able to control the C-suite - the norm, not the exception.

reply
TBH, I find the manner in which this was done to be pretty distasteful.

The US government initiating action against Nvidia for breaking the law, causing the affair to come to light? Yeah, that'd be fine by me. Somebody inside that government tattling tales to the NY Times, possibly with tacit consent of their superiors? That I have concerns with.

I've seen a theory floated online that somebody inside the government, who was part of the faction advocating for stricter sanctions on China, leaked this in a way to cause maximum damage to the anti-restrictions faction. Whether Huang (female Huang) was actually a Chinese spy in the first place is also up in the air, keep in mind that while the affair has almost certainly occurred, given that Huang (male) has admitted to it himself, the Chinese spy allegations are still unverified. It could possibly have been a "grain of truth in a sea of lies" play.

reply
Its a threat to their own companies and whatever amount of democracy is there. Maybe ego is like some cancer that kills/self-ded structs its host/person if it gets big enough. Which is good. A persons etreme wealth gets them political power and also advantages before the law. We've seen this with big corporations.
reply
> A lot of people in this industry have gotten it into their heads over the last 25 years that if you create enough value, you get to ignore things like "rules", "laws" and "common sense".

That's literally how the world works? And has worked for many centuries or longer. By "value" you mean wealth, and wealthy people can get away with murder. They buy and write the law and have the best lawyers in the world.

We won't have billionaires/trillionaires/kings AND rule of law for /everyone/ equally - the world doesn't work that way.

reply
Our President literally diddled kids on a Carribbean island, cheated on his wives several times, and is probably a closeted homosexual, but richest man on earth having an affair is where we draw the line.
reply
Affairs are wrong, but they are not illegal.

> if you create enough value, you get to ignore things like "rules", "laws" and "common sense".

Hmm... I wonder why that is. Could it be because a bunch of CEOs, prominent politicians, and business people were found to have taken multiple trips to an island where the had sex with children and nothing happened to them? No, it couldn't possibly be that. I'm sick of the pearl clutching against a man who had consensual relationships with adult women his own age, while we excuse pedophilia.

reply
> I'm sick of the pearl clutching against a man who had consensual relationships with adult women his own age,

Do we have evidence that his legally-recognized other half consented to these relationships? If so, fine. That still doesn't remove the problems with those relationships, like the possibility of Alice Huang being a PRC intelligence asset, or the fact that one of the affairs was with a company employee, which can, in a roundabout way, place potential penalties on her career if she doesn't consent.

>while we excuse pedophilia.

Excuse me, where the f*ck did I excuse pedophilia???

reply
Trump is on record saying Jensen should not be fired.

That suggests no treason.

reply
Is this remotely believable, that one CEO can surreptitiously work around both the government and his own company to sell restricted goods at volume? If this were real you'd have to lobotomize the entire management structure, because there are a lot of people that would know and know better and that they'd face jail time. And maybe merge it with some other company quickly so it doesn't completely collapse because of the immediate mass firings to try and sway prosecutions toward individuals and not the destroy the entire entity.

I'd be more inclined to believe the spy thriller narrative if he sent the RTL of their top designs to China. Selling goods is not a one chief op.

reply
Alternate perspective:

bipartisan bill[1] needed to decapitate[2] opposition[3] to expanded controls/moratoria and install “neutral” caretakers[4] until passage

[1] https://www.semafor.com/article/09/10/2026/bipartisan-ai-saf...

[2] https://x.com/brianchau57/status/2120745928722087948

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49035303

[4] current CFO Kress or former Apple CEO Tim Cook (suggested by president in social media post)

reply
With a strict ban of chips to China, Chinese companies will not have enough compute. Without enough compute, they are not going to be able to release new open weight models.

That means American companies will have to rely on Anthropic. And interestingly, Anthropic loves to tell users what they can or can not do, such as "The training of Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 included measures to limit advances in a narrow set of capabilities that could most directly accelerate AI development, like accelerator kernel optimization".

Interesting times

reply
> ”it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that NVIDIA sold to China despite the export ban.”

Nvidia sold to companies in Singapore, and then “somehow” the chips got redirected or forwarded on to China.

It’s been known/suspected for years that this was happening, but this Chinese spy scandal does suggest that execs at Nvidia might have known more about what has been going on than they’ve previously admitted.

reply
As though the Board had no idea of this, and are suddenly acting oh gosh this is the first we've heard of the phantom SG revenue! Time for Jensen to go. Nah, not buying it. Many of the board have been w JH since the early 1990s. This is because his reckless disregard for the company and his years-long relationship with a Chinese spy.
reply
NVIDIA's latest chips were also on an export ban for several Middle Eastern countries ("security" theater). That's about the time the UAE's sovereign fund invested a large sum in Cerebras. They were still able to get the chips by way of Kuwait, which is a friendly Middle Eastern state.

Of course, not a year went by before the UAE and Saudi invested heavily in the Trump crypto fund and, very coincidentally, the ban was lifted.

Fear not, Cerebras managed to get another investment from OpenAI!

reply
Him taking the stance of "we should be allowed to sell all the GPUs to China" was bad enough in itself.

Now that the possibility of him being compromised by an actual Chinese spy AND the possibility of Nvidia actually sanction-busting to ship to China regardless are on the table? Both at the same time, no less?

Yeah, that kind of liability is bonkers. Jensen might be too vital to load him into a cannon and fire him into the sun, but I'm not at all surprised that Nvidia wants him gone from the big post.

reply
Why was it bad?

His argument was “we must not make it more convenient to develop a fully domestic stack”

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is a fairly reasonable adage

reply
Nationalism is a mental disease.
reply
I think this episode proves one thing:

It would have been simpler and more profitable to sell China the GPUs.

One woman from the CCP just burned a couple of trillion out of your 401Ks. Have you said thank you even once? Are you sick of winning yet?

reply
I dont think its more soo about the ban as China itself has 'officially' blocked the chips that were being licensed as exportable. I think its more of the asks that were being made by the NATSec and Amodie aligned actors (see the pod he had with Dwarkesh ), to ho tighter and more aggressive. Basically Jensen was sort of the brake on the impulsive ideas getting thrown around on how to 'win' AI and create a moat against all latecomers.

In any case pushing him out allows a freer hand for their shenanigans , so well know shortly what the asks were that he pushed back on (kill switches in chips?) if they get announced.

Also his role will be difficult to fill , seeing as hes had biz/gov relations going back decades with all relevant players in the semi industry from design ,litho,fabs to packaging etc.

reply
Sold to china and gave trump, whitcoff and kushner I think, 15% of sales. Almost like a bribe.

Lots of this has been known since may, and it sounds like the president was informed she was a spy a year ago.

One wonders if this happened now since the Dems took control of the investigation bodies.

If they had not, would they have kept right on as is?

reply
Well the only thing super weird is the timeline - USA bans exports, China (very soon after) bans IMPORTS! And then there's a company which keeps doing trade under the nose of the potentially two most powerful nation-states and their secret service sources. This is super fishy, really I don't buy nobody knew nothing, only for a "lucky" journalist to figure out the whole thing...
reply
> From all the reporting I've read, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that NVIDIA sold to China despite the export ban.

I thought this was like, basically an open secret? Like... I'm sure they stayed within the technical letter of the law? Except if any of the laws required them to not be grossly negligent and not be cartoonishly naive. So that they can later argue that they couldn't possibly have known that chips going to South East Asia were being resold to China?

reply
That’s the excuse, it isn’t the reason.

The reality is a lot of people want to ensure only approved “safe and aligned” models are trained and executed, and nvidia were, by far, the biggest promoter of the idea of freedom. This will be done by forcing you to rent capacity from approved providers that monitor and watermark everything.

Huggingface are almost certainly next in line for a push to lock down. For child safety, obviously.

reply
Very much agreed, the second this became clear his position was untenable. He will surely have launched his unicorn by the end of December regardless, I’d be surprised if this had any tangible repercussions outside the divorce court.

Very much dislike that this in large part is overshadowed by his adultery, which should be considered separate and treated totally private, at least for the sake of his family.

reply
Biggest valuation ever will turn into biggest investor lawsuit ever. The music on the AI circular deals is about to be broken by a feminine spell. This has Lord of the Rings all over it...

NVDA at $151 right now...I never expected to see the day...

reply
Oh, it's not the repeated violations of sexual conduct with an employee, and a spy, and likely more? A CEO who is that dumb to risk his and the company trust isn't worth it. Look, a trillion already wiped out. When employees say "how dumb could he be", you know the board and major investors are saying that too.
reply
Like the film ‘War Dogs’ but with GPUs and affairs instead of weapons and drugs. :D
reply
Did your TV tell you that? I hope you realize that there is absolutely no proof of the import ban having been skirted. The FBI has been investigating Alice Huang and Megaspeed since 2024 and all they have is a few GPUs still being unboxed at their Malaysian data center.
reply
I just find it weird that trump loses the midterms and suddenly this happens. Might be a coincident but feels very sus.
reply
deleted
reply
It’s not the side chicks, it’s the side chips.
reply
I mean, an undisclosed affair with the CEO of a large customer is also a pretty big conflict of interest, regardless of natsec concerns…
reply
Well, you say that, but the perception is he hasn't got sacked for circular financing, nor for the providing of sanctioned components (supposedly they went to third countries, not China, so legal). But he got sacked for two affairs.

This seems very silly.

In all likelihood he got sacked for all those things, the affairs just were a convenient excuse.

What board would admit two thirds of their revenue is imaginary money. It's much better to sack a CEO for being "unfaithful to his wife".

reply
> national security reasons

We've really run this term into the ground, haven't we? They don't even bother to try to convince us that China wants to hurt us anymore before making our lives shitty for it.

reply
>I'd love to be wrong

wong?

reply
Pretty sure he was fucking a Chinese spy though... so...
reply
They could not have done any of the export ban skirting without the complicity or outright cooperation of the administration.

Remind me: when did Huang direct NVDA funds to the Trump ballroom fund?

reply
Trump greenlit H200s for China just this year.
reply
> supposedly

According to who?

reply
There is a wealth of reporting out there, it is harder to ignore this story than to read about it. My statement was couched and is clearly just my opinion, I'll leave the reading to you and let you form your own conclusions
reply
He ALSO slept with a direct report, which would get most of us fired too.
reply
Allegedly. There were no proofs of that, not confessions.
reply
deleted
reply
yup, my NVDA puts are printing hard rn.
reply
Can you imagine if it were a female CEO fired for the same thing? Oh how the accusations of sexism and double standards and how she doesn't have to report to the board what she does with her body. The argument writes itself.
reply
How naive do you have to be to believe that Congress actually cares about that? They don’t care and happily watch their shares rise in price.

If the second affair didn’t come out, this wouldn’t be a discussion.

reply
The rumor is

Trump knew about this in late 2025 and decided not to act.

The reasoning is believed to be because of the idea that if China didn't get Nvidia chips, it would just develop it's own chips faster. So holding the belief that China would end up in the same spot no matter what, it would be preferable to get them to pay Nvidia along the way.

Delving a bit deeper into conspiracy

It's also possible that Trump saw it as a silent favor to Jinping, who took the opportunity to return the favor months later by cutting Chinese oil purchases. One hand washes the other and all that.

reply
I don't think so.

I think it was the affair with the direct report that did him in.

That's a bigger no-no than selling to spies, especially when the administration knew about it and did nothing.

reply
Elon Musk has an AI bot generating explicit images without consent, regardless of age, yet nobody's firing him.

While Jensen seems like an egomaniac who deserves what happened to him, there's a part of me that feels some China hawks had fingers in his firing, it must not sit well with them than America's most valuable company is not in the hands of the old guard.

reply
That is simply not true, Grok refuses to make explicit images, and with uploaded media it refuses to do even mildly enticing ones. *

* — We did a test of it after similar claim a few weeks ago, and what pushed us to do a research is because my friend who works in a hotel industry was getting moderation blocks on Grok left and right — they now use only AI images to not bother with copyright trolls ever again who threaten lawsuits for things like improperly credited bought stock photo — and in their case moderation was a serious hindrance for creating images.

reply
reply
I don't know what was in back 2025. We tested it late October, 2026. Couldn't generate anything explicit at all.
reply
There was no action taken against him when it was most definitely happening was the point, which stands.
reply
Musk has 82% of the voting shares of SpaceX, which owns Twitter. He can't be fired, no matter how much he might deserve it.
reply
There is zero possibility than Jensen Huang faces any serious consequences for this. NVidia is too big and Huang is too wealthy. This administration in particular would never prosecute that. And, even if they did, a pardon is only $1-3 million anyway.

I believe it was the affair with the married subordinate that was the real problem. There's a huge amount of legal exposure for NVidia with that. With the Chinese spy he can portray himself as the victim. As I've said elsewhere, with billionaire corporate security and the support of the US government, It's astounding to me that this happened at all.

Also I'm reminded of this quote [1]:

> If you find two ants in your kitchen, the best estimate of the total number of ants in your kitchen is not two

[1]: https://x.com/_NathanCalvin/status/2084856543561093535

reply
> I believe it was the affair with the married subordinate that was the real problem. There's a huge amount of legal exposure for NVidia with that

For someone not familiar with American law: How the fuck is that a bigger problem than the Chinese spy ?

Is there any explicit rules at NVidia forbidding that in a code of conduct somewhere ?

reply
Being fired seems like a serious consequence.
reply
> I believe it was the affair with the married subordinate that was the real problem

You really think Nvidia would let Huang go (without a replacement matching his skills, experience and knowledge in the field) because he cheated with an employee? It is the spy affair while Huang promoted an open export policy.

Plus thanks to Huang, Nvidia is now under investigation by federal agencies.

None of them care about a CEO cheating.

Also, being fired from the company you founded is a serious consequence.

reply
"There is zero possibility than Jensen Huang faces any serious consequences for this."

Hah. He doesn't have a prenup. That's going to lead to serious enough consequences for him in divorce court.

reply
The ban was lifted and fees were applied so there were plenty of legitimate ways to sell. I hate how inaccurate hn has become.
reply
Everybody should be against the export ban. It's laughable to claim that it is for "national security", it's blatant protectionism to cover US AI companies for the fact that they operate at monumental losses. Any country in the world should be allowed to buy the hardware they need to run AI, if they need it, and if the roles were reversed the US should also be allowed to buy tech from other countries. Graphic cards aren't nuclear bombs, and AI is a multi-use core technology every nation on earth should have access to. So far, China has made a far better impression in that respect than the US. At least they have published open weight models.

The future will be commoditized local AI anyway, so it doesn't matter in the long run. I just needed to rant a bit about the US hypocrisy in that matter.

reply
If the roles were reversed you’d see American battleships off the country’s Ports
reply
Basically every technology is dual use, but still I basically agree, there is an incredible level of anti-China rhetoric in the US right now, not just on the right. The Chip export ban is incredibly tricky reason the outcomes of. For one thing, doesn’t it change the China Taiwan relationship?
reply
> Whether you agree or disagree with the ban, it exists and Jensen&NVIDIA are in a world of trouble if this comes to light.

...maybe. Or maybe not. Consistency in application of the law is not exactly at an all-time high right now.

reply
Oh please, nothing at all will happen to them ...

NVIDIA is important and Jensen's a billionaire ... we're talking a little bit of media scrutiny for a few weeks, a little embarrassment for Jensen, some heartache for his family, and that's it. This will then be consigned to the footnotes of history.

His PR company right now are just saying, say nothing, lay low, we'll handle it.

I still think it would have been far easier for Jensen if he'd given the lady a horse. I understand that's the going rate in the US right now.

reply
Except the administration has known about them skirting it since day 1.

So it’s no longer about national security. What changed now compared to 2 years ago to make Trump care? Did Jenson reduce SpaceX’s allocation?

reply
The midterms seem like the most obvious timing. Trump has a little less power and everyone is starting to plan for what happens after him - jockeying for being able to say they didn't support this and that. If it was only being ignored because Mr Huang could donate a lot of money to Trump's ballroom that deal probably isn't as important now.
reply
> What changed now compared to 2 years ago to make Trump care?

We all now know that Trump knew about it, that's what has changed. It was fine when this was private, but now his administration is starting to get questions around why his Commerce department punted the initial investigation to DOJ where it ultimately died as the opposition party is about to retake Congress with investigations top of mind.

reply
Yeah, over a year ago the likes of Gamers Nexus was able to follow the clues to figure out how Nvidia was skirting the export ban.

It's hard to believe the US government was so incompetent that they didn't do the investigation a YouTuber did (But not impossible).

The export ban was always BS. Unless you are going to do a total ban and all parts are manufactured in the US, then it is just 1 additional hop to get stuff into China.

reply
You have put your finger on it.

Likely there was at least a feeling of mutual understanding between Jensen and key people in the administration. Now the wind has turned in a big way and none of that is on paper. And in fact what is on paper points in the wrong direction.

Probably the only thing protecting NVDA from prosecution right now is that nobody in the White House wants to pop the AI bubble. That might protect Jensen too because he would entangle the company. There will be an interesting tension with congressional oversight. Buy popcorn and NVDA vol.

reply
[dead]
reply
[dead]
reply
[dead]
reply

    > Nvidia has supposedly been skirting the export ban put in place by the previous administration
I want to add some nuance to this statement. There is a difference between:

(1) actively assisting/violating the export ban. There is no evidence, nor any ongoing gov't investigation regarding this accusation.

(2) buyers redirecting legitimate, legal purchases to mainland Chinese companies. There is evidence and multiple ongoing gov't investigations by (a) Department of Justice, (b) Federal Bureau of Investigation, and (c) Department of Commerce.

I cannot find any senior Nvidia executives that have been charged with crimes for directly assisting/violating the export ban. That said, there may be ongoing gov't investigations, but I could not find any public press about them.

reply
It may well be that it's his private life and it doesn't have much to do with things, but it is a contributing factor. The skirting of export bans was the reagent, but the infidelity is the catalyst that is making it much bigger.

CEO is supposed to be a high integrity position despite most tech CEOs trying to pretend that is not the case. If this person cannot be loyal to those closest to him, how can he be loyal to the company or shareholders?

reply
And, there is no spy business. They just want a more compliant CEO. What a *hit show.
reply
So many HN folks defending Huang's actions as "just an affair" - what an epic reading comprehension fail. Yes there is an affair, and that's what grabbed the initial headlines. But just read a paragraph or two and you'll find the espionage story.

For reference, the US has sentenced violators of export laws to decades of prison or even execution in extreme cases (when the Rosenburgs leaked nuclear secrets in 1953, they were sentenced to death). It's just shy of treason, legally. This is maybe one of the largest and most consequential intelligence breaches in history. Anyone who thinks this about an extramarital affair really isn't paying attention. Buckle up, its gonna get bumpy.

reply
Mostly the apologism is for the affair part, not the espionage part. So it kind of lines up with your points about what the important issue is.
reply
What else did the US do in 1953 since you are so keen on it? Can think of a few things.
reply
[flagged]
reply