Jensen Huang Warns: "You Have No Idea What's Coming In 2027"

But AI is similar to enriched uranium, right? And then it can have positive uses, it can have negative uses. We still don't want to send enriched uranium to other countries. Who's sending enriched ore? The analogy here is the enriched uranium is like... Because it's a lousy analogy. It's an illogical analogy. You're not talking to somebody who woke up a loser. And that loser attitude, that loser premise makes no sense to me. Okay, I'll move on. I just want to make sure that... You don't have to move on. Guys, Jensen Wong just gave a shocking interview. He got into a heated argument with the host Dwarkesh Patel over the question of selling chips to China. Guys, one thing that nobody's really talking about is that Nvidia still runs the risk of huge losses when the AI bubble pops. I mean, they have capital tied up in the major AI firms, so there's financial skin in the game on their part. But then their valuation is also inflated based on current sales figures that include agreements that exist in principle for chips that haven't even been manufactured yet. When they say things about how all their capacity is sold out through 2028 or whatever the number is, what happens to those future deals if OpenAI or Anthropic goes bankrupt? I feel like Jensen Wong is the guy who's selling shovels in a gold rush. So even if the AI bubble pops, Nvidia will still be rich. Now let's watch the interview and I'll give my opinion as we go. Chinese companies and Chinese labs and the Chinese government had access to the AI chips to train a model like Cloud Mythos with these cyber offensive capabilities and run millions of instances of it with more compute. The question is, oh, is that a threat to American companies, to American national security? First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane capacity and a fairly mundane amount of it. By an extraordinary company. And so the amount of capacity and the type of compute that it was trained on is abundantly available in China. And so you just have to first realize that chips exist in China. They manufacture 60% of the world's mainstream chips, maybe more. It's a very large industry for them. They have some of the world's greatest computer scientists. As you know, most of the AI researchers in all of these AI labs most of them are Chinese. They have 50% of the world's AI researchers. And so the question is, if you're concerned about them, what is the considering all the assets they already have? They have an abundance of energy. They have plenty of chips. They got most of the AI researchers. If you're worried about them, what is the best way to create a safe world? Well, victimizing them, turning them into an enemy, likely isn't the best answer. They are an adversary. We want the United States to win. But I think having a dialogue and having research dialogue is probably the safest thing to do. This is an area that is glaringly missing because of our current attitude about China as an adversary. It is essential that our AI researchers and their AI researchers are actually talking. It is essential that we try to both agree on what not to use the AI for. With respect to finding bugs in software, of course, that's what AI is supposed to do. Is it going to find bugs in a lot of software? Of course. There's lots and lots of bugs. There are lots of bugs in the AI software. And so that's what AI is supposed to do. And I'm delighted that AI has reached a level where it could help us be so much more productive. One of the things that is under-emphasized is the richness of ecosystem around cybersecurity, AI cybersecurity and AI security and AI privacy and AI safety. That whole ecosystem of AI startups that are trying to create this future for us, where you have one AI agent that's incredible, surrounded by thousands of AI agents keeping it safe, keeping it secure, that future surely is going to happen. And the idea that you're going to have an AI agent running around with nobody watching after it is kind of insane. And so we know very well that this ecosystem needs to thrive. It turns out this ecosystem needs open source. This ecosystem needs open models. They need open stacks so that all of these AI researchers and all these great computer scientists can go build AI systems that are as formidable and can keep AI safe. And so one of the things that we need to make sure that we do is we keep the open source ecosystem vibrant. And that can't be ignored. That can't be ignored. And a lot of that is coming out of China. We ought to not suffocate that. With respect to China, we want to have, of course, we want United States to have as much computing as possible. We're limited by energy, but we got a lot of people working on that and we ought to not make energy a bottleneck for our country. But what we also want is we want to make sure that all the AI developers in the world are developing on the American tech stack and making the contributions, the advancements of AI, especially when it's open source, available to the American ecosystem. And it would be extremely foolish to create two ecosystems, the open source ecosystem, and it only runs on the Chinese tech, a foreign tech stack and a closed ecosystem. And that runs on the American tech stack. I think that that would be a horrible outcome for United States. I'm going to pause here for a bit, guys. Dwarkesh asked a very reasonable question and it was pretty disappointing to see how tilted Jensen got. I think Jensen will only talk about the benefit and never admit to the cost of exporting to China, not just because it makes NVIDIA more money, but also I feel like Jensen feels terrified that if the US government blocks exports to China, the CCP would throw massive resources at replacing CUDA as the only realistic framework for AI use. And if they actually succeed in building CUDA alternative, then suddenly AMD, Intel, Huawei, etc. will get much more valuable for AI work and NVIDIA's domination over the chip market would be over. Guys, I believe what would happen is China would partner up with NVIDIA just long enough to steal their IP, then ban them from competing against the state cronies like Huawei. This is probably why the US government wants NVIDIA to stay away from China, because the only outcome is transferring American tech IP to a hostile foreign power in a way that profits only a few people and works against the best interests of America in general. I guess the claim here is, Dario had this quote where he said, it's like Boeing bragging that we're selling North Korean nukes, but the missile casings are made by Boeing. And that's somehow enabling the US technology stack. Like fundamentally, you're giving them this capability. Comparing AI to anything that you just mentioned is lunacy. But AI is similar to enriched uranium, right? And then it can have positive uses, it can have negative uses, but you still don't want to send enriched uranium to other countries. Who's sending enriched ore? The analogy here is enriched uranium is like... It's a lousy analogy. It's an illogical analogy. But if that compute can run a model that can do zero-day exploits against all American software, how is that not a weapon? First of all, the way to solve that problem is to have dialogues with the researchers, the dialogues with China and dialogues with other countries to make sure that people don't use technology in that way. That's a dialogue that has to happen. Number one. We also need to make sure that the United States is ahead. Everything that Rubin, Vera Rubin, Blackwell is available in the United States in abundance. Mounds of it, obviously, our results would show it. Abundance, tons of it, tons of it. The amount of computing we have is great. We have amazing AI researchers here. It's great. We ought to stay ahead. However, we also have to recognize that AI is not just a model. That AI is a five-year cake. That AI industry matters across every single layer. And we want the United States to win at every single layer, including the chip layer. And conceding the entire market is not going to allow the United States to win the technology race long-term in the chip layer, in the computing stack. That is just a fact. I guess then the crux comes down to how does selling them chips now help us win in the long term? Tesla sold extremely good electric vehicles to China for a long time. iPhones are sold in China extremely good. They didn't cause some lock-in. China will still make their version of EVs and they're dominating, and smartphones are dominating. When we started the conversation today, you would acknowledge and you acknowledged that NVIDIA's position is very different. You use words like moat. The single most important thing to our company is our richness of our ecosystem, which is about developers. 50% of the AI developers are in China. The United States should not give that up. But we have a lot of NVIDIA developers in the US, and that doesn't prevent American labs from also being able to use other accelerators in the future. In fact, right now they're using other accelerators as well, which is fine and great. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case in China as well, if you sell them NVIDIA chips, just the same way that Google can use TPUs and NVIDIA. We have to keep innovating. As you probably know, our share is growing, not decreasing. The premise that even if we competed in China, that we're going to lose that market anyways. You're not talking to somebody who woke up a loser. And that loser attitude, that loser premise makes no sense to me. We're not a car. We are not a car. The fact that I can buy a car, this car brand one day and use another car brand another day, easy. Computing is not like that. There's a reason why the X86 still exists. There's a reason why ARM is so sticky. These ecosystems are hard to replace. It costs an enormous amount of time and energy and most people don't want to do it. And so it's our job to continue to nurture that ecosystem, to keep advancing the technology so that we could compete in the marketplace. Conceding a marketplace based on the premise you described, I simply can't acknowledge that. It makes no sense. Because I don't think the United States is a loser. Our industry is not a loser. And that losing proposition, that losing mindset makes no sense to me. Okay, I'll move on. I just want to make sure that- You don't have to move on. I'm enjoying it. Okay, great. Yeah, yeah. I appreciate that. I'm going to pause here for a bit, guys. I think selling chips to China to develop advanced AI seems foolish if you believe in exponential recursive improvement. You're literally trading with your competitor something that has a fixed cash value in the present for infinite value in the future. I like Jensen. I'm actually a fan of him. But this is the first time I've seen him rattled. He got lost in trying to deflect here. He didn't have a logical counter-argument to the question. So he got defensive and gave a somewhat weak attempt to divert the question by saying, we need to have dialogue with China about, please don't use this tech in a bad way. That's either wildly ignorant of how China or him thinking his audience isn't that smart. I mean, guys, this is an extremely serious race, in my opinion. More significant than the nuclear arms race, with more on the line. And I'm not convinced we should be helping China. Jensen's argument actually felt like he was trying to say it's better to keep China one step behind while keeping the money in the US via old Nvidia chips rather than risk them creating a completely new ecosystem that could potentially compete with the US on a global scale. And again, guys, I've seen a lot of Jensen interviews, and this is the first time I've seen him struggle to articulate his argument. And this is one of the concerns that I have about the doomers describing the end of work and killing of jobs. And one of the things that if we discourage people from being software engineers, we're going to run out of software engineers. And the same prediction 10 years ago, some of the doomers were saying that we're telling people, whatever you do, don't be a radiologist. And you might hear some of those videos are still on the web. You know, radiology is going to be the first career to go. The world's not going to need any more radiologists. Guess what we're short of? Radiologists. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job, and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to the United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists, and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task, the job of a radiologist, patient care, task, to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. And so I'm making the case, when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want the United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Is today you're talking about mythos because mythos is important? Sure. That's fantastic. But in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export, because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again. And I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it. But why do we concede it? Now, nobody is advocating. Nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody's advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first. But we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes. My point is architecture matters. Computer science matters. Semiconductor physics matter as well. But computer science matters. AI, the impact of AI largely comes from the computing stack, which is the reason why CUDA is so effective, which is the reason why CUDA is so beloved. It's an ecosystem, a computing architecture that allows for so much flexibility that if you wanted to change an architecture completely, create something like MOE, create something like diffusion, create something that's disaggregated, you could do so. It's easy to do. And so the fact of the matter is, AI is about the stack above as much as it is about the architecture below. To the extent that we have architectures and software stacks that are optimized for our stack, for our ecosystem, it is obviously good. Because we started the conversation today about how NVIDIA's ecosystem is so rich, why people always love programming on CUDA first. They do. And so do the researchers in China. But if we are forced to leave China, if we're forced to leave China, it would be, well, first of all, it's a policy mistake. Obviously it has backlash. Obviously it has turned out badly for the United States. It enabled, it accelerated our chip industry. It forced all of their AI ecosystem to focus on their internal architectures. It's not too late, but nonetheless, it has already happened. Guys, I think Jensen is pretty right about the doom and gloom culture we've built around AI. I mean, the same thing happened with truckers. They were all acting like trucking jobs would be dead within 10 years. When the Tesla truck was unveiled, everybody was like, this is going to replace every trucker in the United States. But look at the situation now. There's a shortage of truckers and Tesla and no one else is near a successful model nor mass production. I'm not saying AI won't replace jobs in the future, but the way AI is being represented right now is pretty wrong. All right, guys, that's it for today. I'll see you next week with another video.