Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarymax | Hacker News Reader

The apologists in this thread are absolutely shocking. Jensen is a ruthless CEO who clearly lacks moral fiber. Why do we idolize and "feel" for people like this?

View on HN

Can't speak for everyone else but for me it's because:

1. The whole spy / compromising national security thing are as far as I know unproven.

2. Affairs by themselves, while not ethical, are fairly tame compare to other prominent tech figures like Musk.

If it comes out that he did indeed compromise national security knowingly, then that's a different matter of course.

unproven?! https://culperresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Culper...

The most importance sentence from your report is this one from the top of page 6:

> We believe that despite essentially no direct compute sales into China after April 2025, Nvidia continued to service Chinese demand via sales to non-restricted intermediaries and diversion.

That’s not at all breaking export control laws. In fact it is the government’s responsibility to identify these non-restricted intermediaries and make them restricted. The government has done this plenty of times in the past and it should again do so here. It is not a company’s job to infer what the government wants it to do. The difference between selling to China and servicing China-originated demand is huge.

And then in a massive game of telephone many people on this thread actually believes that Nvidia allowed direct sales to China, which is how they conclude Huang is breaking the law.

Its a 40 page report. There is no 'most important sentence' that justifies hand waving nuance in evaluating the veracity of claims.

I did skim all 40 pages. None of the remaining nuance is as important as this sentence in the context of this thread. I made this importance judgement myself. You are of course free to read the whole thing too and point out which other nuances are pertinent to the current discussion.

Yes unproven, hence the word “alleged” in all the articles. Your link provided no evidence evidence she’s a spy for China.

No, she just helped them evade export controls and got in bed with an incredibly powerful foreign business leader

Whether or not there's proprietary information espionage going on, there are no other explanations on the table for Megaspeed being able to buy billions of dollars of Nvidia chips other than that they are cut out and smuggling channel.

I'm not even that bothered about those chips going to China. But, like a lot of other aspects that leave us wondering how big and how fragile an AI bubble exists, the fact that billions of dollars of Nvidia revenue is from a reportedly priority customer that isn't actually using the chips is the problem.

To quote a fictional president: "That's the problem with the american dream, it makes everyone concerned for the day they're going to be rich..."

He sucks but even if I take the worst interpretation of what it looks like this guy did and assume there's a bunch of other affairs I just don't have enough energy to get worked up about something so comparatively small potatoes. I don't idolize or feel sorry for him, but he was a competent leader of his company. Nvidia will be a weaker company without him and I think the fears of an inference lock on GPUs to prop up slime ball American AI companies is more likely to come true with him gone. The next CEO is more likely to accept a bride to make it happen.

So you think quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace is no big deal? People should be able to fuck their way to the top, and bosses should be able to demand sex from you to keep your job?

The apologists probably hold NVDA stock. Same thing happens with other popular companies and their voices are very loud online.

I have NVDA stock, I think this is neutral at worst. Obviously bad short term, but the fundamentals are what they are. They are gonna print money for at least the next 5 years no matter what happens.

I would invest but my concern is nvidia getting dragged through investigations, who knows how deep this goes.

The reality of the situation is they can be guilty as fuck, but they are so important to the world and us economy, that any sanctions they have will be symbolic. Nobody wants to kill the golden goose, even democrats.

There will be a lot of noise, it will be embarrassing, but I just can't imagine a situation where it significantly impacts their bottom line.

The bear case here is pretty much that you think AI is a bubble anyway, and this just accelerates it.

I bought more this morning, it's just on sale.

To which kind of morality are you referring to? The extramarital affair, the puritan angle, or something else?

The sleeping with a spy and selling chips to china part.

And having an affair with a subordinate. That alone should be grounds for being instantly fired.

In order to see this as a bad thing you have to first agree with the export controls. Like Jensen, HN loves chinese models, that's why the outrage does not resonate.

It would be hypocritical to both use DeepSeek and also be outraged at the (alleged) mechanisms through which China acquires GPUs.

No, you only need to agree that the rule of law is important to uphold, whether you agree with all the laws or not.

I personally could care less if he sells chips to china, morally, but they do have to follow the law.

Not sure if the second part qualifies as morality, even if I think it's the real cause of this.

I wonder if people haven't seen his interviews or public appearances in the past 1-2 years, especially when anything to do with Trump came up. I don't find CEO interviews particularly interesting to begin with, because they're performing a role and can't give honest answers. Jensen took that dishonesty to a pretty high level.

Ezra Klein interviewed Jensen about 1.5 months ago and I had an off-putting feeling from it, and thought a lot of his answers were laughable. He sounded like he was obviously lying. A few days later, Klein interviewed Bill Gates and sort of anonymously brought up the arguments that Jensen made. You could see a visible disbelief of the arguments in Gates' face and posture, even saying "I almost can't believe you're asking that". (Not that Bill Gates is some paragon, but it wasn't close to a respectful disagreement.)

You could tell Ezra was frustrated in that interview. I thought his first two questions were pushing for a real answer from Jensen and he just sort of let it go because it was clear he wasn't going to get one. The notion that societal shifts were going to be fine and we were just ignoring human ambition, end of answer, was intellectually pretty wild. I also thought the subsequent Bill Gates interview was the perfect follow up.

In other contexts we expect some transparency if you have a stake in what is happening. This thread is full of tech workers, and would look very different if each comment was prefaced with some sort of 'Hello, I am John Doe. Nvidia represents 35% of my retirement portfolio, and the semiconductor industry overall represents over 70%. This is why I do not care to rock the boat, and think he did nothing wrong...'

What kind of investment strategy would have 70% in semiconductors? We all need to diversify more again, huh.

> ruthless

Really now. Let's get some examples of his being ruthless.

It's insane. I bet none of the commenters here would spare a thought for a manager at a 7-11 who got fired for having sex with one of his subordinates and ended up on the streets because he couldn't pay his rent.

But one of the wealthiest people on the planet gets fired, suffering zero personal hardship as a result, and everybody's up in arms. How could you do this! They all do this, how dare you single him out!

I think that there's a pervasive idea, especially in the tech/startup space, that making money is a moral good. Not merely that making money is compatible with being a good person, but that it makes you a good person, and the more you make the more good you are. Firing an ultra-rich person is therefore basically an affront to a saint. Never mind that it doesn't put them under any hardship, that they and their heirs will still be wealthier than any of us can even conceive of. It's morally wrong to do anything bad to such a good person.

You're asking why posters in a VC forum, in an industry that is despised by the public for its wanton greed, societal destruction, and complete disdain towards humanity would want to protect one of their own?

Bro, this is what the tech industry is all about: fucking over society to make a dollar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com