I'd go as far as to say the second leak helps him a bit, by reframing this as a cheating scandal rather than it being more about him knowingly evading an embargo.
Having an affair with your direct report also wildly increases the risk that Nvidia would be embroiled in high-profile lawsuits, either for sexual harassment or favoritism
A CEO admitting to an affair with a customer after previously denying it, seems like a sufficient reason for removal, even before you add the geopolitical intrigue.
Because the customer in question raises questions of the CEO's judgement, plus the possibility of knowledge that the target was violating sanctions. We don't know. That's why it's a bad situation for the stock.
The stock seems to be responding more heavily to the potential loss of Jensen than it does to the potential continuation of Jensen given new knowledge.
It also seems like there’s a high potential for half of Jensen’s position to be granted in a subsequent divorce decree, meaning there could be enormous selling pressure in the next several years.
I don’t think she’s likely to sell it right away, but I do think she’s a lot more likely to sell it sooner than they would have together as of last week.
That change is still material to the future outlook as the price is the intersection of supply and demand and the predicted supply of $NVDA shares for sale just increased by scores of billions of dollars worth.
Morality is not a straight line, once someone has cheated they sort of accepted it for themselves after feeling guilty but that doesn't transfer to other places where someones morals are challenged.
Relationships and stock price are built on trust. An affair, a relationship with a customer/subordinate, and an attempted cover-up are all breaches of that trust.
> Why is an affair with a customer grounds for announcing a resignation that caused an instant 10% stock price drop?
OP said
>A CEO admitting to an affair with a customer *after previously denying it*, seems like a sufficient reason for removal
It's not the crime. It's the cover up.
In this case Jensen either 1) lied to the board about the affair, 2) directed the Nvidia PR to publish a materially false statement about it, or 3) both.
From a company governance standpoint it's incredibly hard to trust Jensen when he's either lying to you, using the company to protect his personal life, or (again) both.
Admitting to the affair with a customer is a nothingburger. Directing the company to release a false statement about it, and that customer turns out to be a Chinese asset if a BIG fucking deal.
Lying about it served no one's interest but Jensen's, and ended up hurting the company significantly.
Nvidia's previous denials are a significant issue from a board of directors position. He either lied to the board about it, directed the company's PR people to make a false statement about it, or both. And that lie turned out to be material (in a SEC sense of the word material).
It would be very difficult for the board to regain trust in his ability to make choices that are correct for Nvidia, rather than himself.
Two back to back including one with a subordinate and one involving a person violating export controls though are pretty tough to weather. And I doubt that's the end of the affairs too, I'm not a Huang is months away from having dated every woman on earth extrapolationist but I also doubt he's only had (or has) 2.
I don't know why you're getting downvotes. The parent comment, "Most likely the internal findings from the investigation point to something more troubling/illegal", is comical. The information on the public record already points to something troubling/illegal, as you just pointed out!
Plus Jensen Huang is an immigrant from Taiwan. And this administration does not like people who haven't been born on this geographical soil (being not born on US soil, I am obviously not against it, just pointing out obvious animosity of current US administration towards immigrants in general)
you mean financially successful right? Otherwise both are terrible parasites and recently we just seeing tip of an iceberg when it comes to Vivek (I know 2 people that worked for him, but I will leave it at that).
One of the first things I learned in ML is that the model can only learn from the information in X. If X doesn't contain enough information to determine y, no amount of compute can fully recover it.
That's why I'm skeptical of grand claims about AI. Scaling can make models much better, but it can't create information that isn't there. An AI system can be extremely useful without becoming superhuman.
And what do you think about recent developments, for example Navier-Stokes? I always thought the same but now I have doubts, but maybe it is just psyops from openai.
It is speculated that there was context leak from a NYU Professor's chat I think? I contribute to SciPy heavily and I've seen AI shit the bed a few times now. So 13 million lines of lean? Hell no dude!
If all the other AI companies are promising AGI by Q4 of next year, what else can you do to satisfy shareholders than also jump on that same bandwagon?
When you return the device, it needs to be in mint condition. You now have a credit obligation with Klarna, whereas on the pervious system, there was also 0% financing but it was bundled AppleCare+.
I don't think anyone will ever excercise the buyout option since the phone will never be worth more than the buyout price. And like you're saying, this program does not make sense unless you are upgrading every single year.
I mean in any case, every option looks defensible once you've accepted the premise that you need a new phone every 12 months. Any minute differences in costs are just rounding errors. Like I really don't think someone upgrading every year is going to have a significantly different retirement income because they saved $1200 every year by not buying the iphone outright. It's really just a convenience thing, not a financial decision.
So funny to me how you wasted time giving all this feedback but OP is just going to feed it into Claude and not actually read anything you said. Don't reward people that don't care about what they're building with effort, it makes the world a worse place.
>In other words, correctness, truth, cohesiveness, completeness, comprehension, etc are all essentially patterns that are mapped in this space.
The caveat is that truth in latent space is just a reflection of the consensus from the corpus, and you find truth by comparing the answer in latent space to what is in reality.
But I just hate this idea that truth and facts are no longer real, they're just "directions". The more we rely on these models for our lives, the more we lose touch with reality and are pushed and pulled in all these different directions. Feels like the future is just ai psychosis and there's no way out. Is that what complete agi victory looks like?
> But I just hate this idea that truth and facts are no longer real, they're just "directions".
There's another way to look at this which is just as pernicious, and you've already mentioned it. That's the idea that "truth" is the consensus of the training data. Even if you include several layers of meta-training-data (i.e training data that comments on the accuracy/truthfulness of other training data), this idea that we can get truth by just carrying out some aggregate operation across (everything|a lot of stuff) seems completely obviously false to me.
I think virtual reality and AI are a prelude to humanity living in Hong Kong style coffin apartments, and things will get progressively worse until we're in Matrix pods.
reply