upvote
> 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