3 ms·

Jensen Huang Just Told Every CEO Hiding Behind AI Layoffs to Shut Up

14 points by cdrnsf 5mo ago

jqpabc123 5mo ago
So it's OK to do it --- just don't talk about it?
- re-thc 5mo ago
  > just don't talk about it No, that's just the headline / reporting misquoting. He didn't say that. Jensen specifically said it was a cop out (not a direct quote word for word either).
  - jqpabc123 5mo ago
    Labeling it negatively is just a diplomatic way of saying "don't talk about it".
- xg15 5mo ago
  More like "It's ok to do it, just don't blame AI for it"...
  - jqpabc123 5mo ago
    Same, same.
carterschonwald 5mo ago
“sit with it a moment” or similar phrases is one of the more common anthropic tells ive seen. ughh
- xg15 5mo ago
  Yeah, there are a lot of AI-isms in there. Also weirdly sometimes the entire "rythm" between sentences as well. > The fear stacks. It compounds. And it creates political and regulatory blowback that lands on the entire industry, including the companies doing it well.
  - infamousclyde 5mo ago
    I am utterly repulsed by this now-pervasive staccato impact writing. LinkedIn is a quagmire for AI-generated copy.
- ViktorRay 5mo ago
  I’ve seen people use that phrase long before AI. Is this the new thing that’s going to happen now? People use phrases that have been around forever and people accuse them of using AI? I’m glad I’m not going to college in this environment. How unfortunate and demoralizing it would be if I wrote an essay by myself in a college class and the professor thought I was using AI. I haven’t been to college in a while. That was long before AI. I do have access to some of my old essays. Based on their tone and some of the wording I was using, I don’t doubt that some people would accuse them of being AI written were it not for the fact I wrote them many years ago. Will college students now deliberately try to avoid certain common phrases out of paranoia of being accused of this?
  - carterschonwald 5mo ago
    its about overuse of rhetoric in a dilutive way. sitting with something is for way more personal or emotionally intense shock than one ceo saying other ceos are lying sacks of shit about layoffs, albeit in ceo speak. a republican party die hard from like the 70s or earlier would be so shocked and disgusted by the modern incarnation that would literally need to sit down for a while just to emotionally process their shock and disgust. shitty ceos not owning their fuckups, not shocking
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 5mo ago
    > People use phrases that have been around forever and people accuse them of using AI What's happening (in the most part) is that because people used that phrase long before AI, that its in the AI training set and being slopped back out at us.
- sixtyj 5mo ago
  Sit with it a moment - you know what I mean - it’s obvious - elementary knowledge… etc. Are they clichés? Yes, they are. But AI certainly didn’t invent them. It just amplified them, because even those who couldn’t put together an essay without AI now have the chance to write a coherent sentence. AI is a ghost writer for people.
- ddmf 5mo ago
  Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major; and I mean major; leaflet campaign.
samsari 5mo ago
This is no specific comment on the article or its contents. But I am getting extremely tired of headlines that follow the "X just Y (and it changes everything you thought you knew about Z)" pattern.
stephc_int13 5mo ago
The reality is that many CEOs don't really know what they are doing. The disruption is not following their playbook. When faced with uncertainty we tend to look at past examples, the industrial revolution, the internet, electrification, etc. I think it is a weak predictor. We don't know. But I have the feeling that it is going to be worse before it is getting better. There are huge signs of capital misallocation and public sentiment backlash, the curve ahead seems likely to look a lot more like a roller coaster than a smooth ride.
- spwa4 5mo ago
  CEOs, or at least the ones meant here, didn't create any of these companies. They're all about extracting money, about profit. They're accountants. They often bought themselves into the company, and they want, they even need, a return on investment. They don't have vision. They are investors in the existing business. Vision, changing the company. Doing more, doing better? That is just not what they're doing. Not the game they're playing. They only fire, or hire, or do anything at all for ONE reason: to increase profits. Nothing else, nothing more.
drillsteps5 5mo ago
Direct quote: >We have covered this math before. The $725 billion that Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta are spending on AI infrastructure in 2026 has to come from somewhere. For many companies, the somewhere is headcount. Not because AI replaced the work. Because the budget line got moved to a different row on a spreadsheet. So "headcount" (because that's what we call people) is being cut because of crazy spending on genAI infrastructure (part of which btw goes to Mr Hwang's company). Or, if you're not a hyperscaler, crazy spending on tools/tokens. But no, you should NOT tie reductions in "headcount" to genAI. That's "irresponsible" and "lazy". Did I get that right?
Markoff 5mo ago
this is the actual source for the article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48290427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48290427
jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
Watching Jensen stick his junk in it and say again and again and again the PC market is going to be crushed forever and eve and ever and him being delighted about it feels barely any better. It's way way longer a video than feels useful, but there's quite the stream of quotes from Jensen relishing in fucking over everyone except the titanscalers, with gleefully predictions it will destroy every other form of computing forever. https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8 https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8

14 points by cdrnsf 5mo ago

jqpabc123 5mo ago

So it's OK to do it --- just don't talk about it?

re-thc 5mo ago
> just don't talk about it No, that's just the headline / reporting misquoting. He didn't say that. Jensen specifically said it was a cop out (not a direct quote word for word either).
- jqpabc123 5mo ago
  Labeling it negatively is just a diplomatic way of saying "don't talk about it".
xg15 5mo ago
More like "It's ok to do it, just don't blame AI for it"...
- jqpabc123 5mo ago
  Same, same.

carterschonwald 5mo ago

“sit with it a moment” or similar phrases is one of the more common anthropic tells ive seen. ughh

xg15 5mo ago
Yeah, there are a lot of AI-isms in there. Also weirdly sometimes the entire "rythm" between sentences as well. > The fear stacks. It compounds. And it creates political and regulatory blowback that lands on the entire industry, including the companies doing it well.
- infamousclyde 5mo ago
  I am utterly repulsed by this now-pervasive staccato impact writing. LinkedIn is a quagmire for AI-generated copy.
ViktorRay 5mo ago
I’ve seen people use that phrase long before AI. Is this the new thing that’s going to happen now? People use phrases that have been around forever and people accuse them of using AI? I’m glad I’m not going to college in this environment. How unfortunate and demoralizing it would be if I wrote an essay by myself in a college class and the professor thought I was using AI. I haven’t been to college in a while. That was long before AI. I do have access to some of my old essays. Based on their tone and some of the wording I was using, I don’t doubt that some people would accuse them of being AI written were it not for the fact I wrote them many years ago. Will college students now deliberately try to avoid certain common phrases out of paranoia of being accused of this?
- carterschonwald 5mo ago
  its about overuse of rhetoric in a dilutive way. sitting with something is for way more personal or emotionally intense shock than one ceo saying other ceos are lying sacks of shit about layoffs, albeit in ceo speak. a republican party die hard from like the 70s or earlier would be so shocked and disgusted by the modern incarnation that would literally need to sit down for a while just to emotionally process their shock and disgust. shitty ceos not owning their fuckups, not shocking
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5mo ago
  > People use phrases that have been around forever and people accuse them of using AI What's happening (in the most part) is that because people used that phrase long before AI, that its in the AI training set and being slopped back out at us.
sixtyj 5mo ago
Sit with it a moment - you know what I mean - it’s obvious - elementary knowledge… etc. Are they clichés? Yes, they are. But AI certainly didn’t invent them. It just amplified them, because even those who couldn’t put together an essay without AI now have the chance to write a coherent sentence. AI is a ghost writer for people.
ddmf 5mo ago
Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major; and I mean major; leaflet campaign.

samsari 5mo ago

This is no specific comment on the article or its contents. But I am getting extremely tired of headlines that follow the "X just Y (and it changes everything you thought you knew about Z)" pattern.

stephc_int13 5mo ago

The reality is that many CEOs don't really know what they are doing. The disruption is not following their playbook. When faced with uncertainty we tend to look at past examples, the industrial revolution, the internet, electrification, etc. I think it is a weak predictor. We don't know. But I have the feeling that it is going to be worse before it is getting better. There are huge signs of capital misallocation and public sentiment backlash, the curve ahead seems likely to look a lot more like a roller coaster than a smooth ride.

spwa4 5mo ago
CEOs, or at least the ones meant here, didn't create any of these companies. They're all about extracting money, about profit. They're accountants. They often bought themselves into the company, and they want, they even need, a return on investment. They don't have vision. They are investors in the existing business. Vision, changing the company. Doing more, doing better? That is just not what they're doing. Not the game they're playing. They only fire, or hire, or do anything at all for ONE reason: to increase profits. Nothing else, nothing more.

drillsteps5 5mo ago

Direct quote: >We have covered this math before. The $725 billion that Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta are spending on AI infrastructure in 2026 has to come from somewhere. For many companies, the somewhere is headcount. Not because AI replaced the work. Because the budget line got moved to a different row on a spreadsheet. So "headcount" (because that's what we call people) is being cut because of crazy spending on genAI infrastructure (part of which btw goes to Mr Hwang's company). Or, if you're not a hyperscaler, crazy spending on tools/tokens. But no, you should NOT tie reductions in "headcount" to genAI. That's "irresponsible" and "lazy". Did I get that right?

Markoff 5mo ago

this is the actual source for the article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48290427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48290427

jauntywundrkind 5mo ago

Watching Jensen stick his junk in it and say again and again and again the PC market is going to be crushed forever and eve and ever and him being delighted about it feels barely any better. It's way way longer a video than feels useful, but there's quite the stream of quotes from Jensen relishing in fucking over everyone except the titanscalers, with gleefully predictions it will destroy every other form of computing forever. https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8 https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8