https://www.reddit.com/r/agi/comments/1s7sgg0/nvidias_jensen...
In this case, Fridman had offered Huang a very unusual metric for AGI: Could AI start and grow a technology business to the point where it was worth $1 billion? Fridman asked if Huang thought AGI by this definition could be achieved within the next five to 20 years.
Huang said he didn’t think that amount of time was necessary. “I think it’s now. I think we’ve achieved AGI,” he said. He then hedged, noting the company didn’t necessarily have to remain that valuable. “You said a billion,” Huang told Fridman, “and you didn’t say forever.”I'd like some of what you're smoking. At best I could call him an artist, in the sense that "good artists copy, great artists steal".
Ahh, looks like the midterm results are still smarting!
>> The code applies to all employees and board members and provides for disciplinary action, including termination, for violations.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/report-nvidia-ceo-had...
Seems pretty clear cut
Doesn't matter if he is. He presents it as some kind of big issue that "No one of character can respect or trust him anymore", which even if true had almost zero impact for all other CEOs doing the same and worse.
Otherwise nobody gives a shit and it happens all the time.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority definition 1.c
Secondly, no one sane defends our pedophile president so not sure why you bring that up as supporting fact.
And almost all of big CEOs sleep with stuff or not-their-wives. Many do worse, think certain private islands...
Are there a lot of these types of people at the top?
Shit, can we even claim people gambling on stocks are "of character"?
There's a lot of gray here. I don't care that he chose to probably capitulate his marriage, but it does matter that he is somewhere between a honeypot buffoon or commiting light treason.
Who cares?
Except, it happens frequently and most of the time people ignore it. In practice, it is accepted most of the time.
I know another case when a lady working in a multi national cheated on her husband with her boss. Soon enough her boss had to “tackle a few challenges “ … in a different country LOL. The bosscame back to the Borg a few years later.
If China is the enemy then why do we have entire stores selling nothing but Chinese made goods in the US? Why is everyone running to China to manufacture anything? If China is the enemy the whole world is in bed with them.
All that talk about competition being good for the market goes out the window when it comes to China seemingly.
China adopted an intentional strategy where western companies for benign reasons of profit leveraged China’s immense human capital to produce products and lower costs for everyone across the planet. This was a win for many. China got to industrialize and lift citizens out of poverty, and companies across the world were able to deliver mass produced good (eventually high quality) for cheap. The United States for example was the champion of China joining the WTO.
But China because it’s a communist dictatorship restricted its market and began doing things that were long-term oriented toward depriving others of power and manufacturing capability for their regime’s private gain. For example today we see that China has over-built its manufacturing capacity (like it did with housing) and has used artificially cheap labor, unjust laws, and currency manipulation (among many other things) to prevent entry into their market while running companies from other countries out of business leaving them dependent on Chinese manufacturing. Prominently you can look at Germany today where sales in China have collapsed, and at home their vaunted manufacturing industry is going through what happened in the US in the so-called “rust belt”. The US has smartly enacted tariffs and other measures to protect its market to some extent from China’s strategy here.
So when someone says something like “all this talk goes out the window about competition when it comes to China” you’ve got to understand a bit more about how China has behaved toward other nations and the egregiously unfair trade practices it has enacted to understand why many countries ranging from the US, to Mexico, to Australia and of course the EU have enacted various restrictions and industrial policy to combat China’s embarrassing and poor behavior on the global stage with respect to trade.
Anything but actually stop having a complete dependency on China for their entire way of life of course.
Everyone wants more independence to some degree, it’s just that not everyone is prepared to pay the same price, or is willing to accept the same compromises. So yeah, if you personally put the line somewhere, you will be disappointed if a given government sees things differently and puts it somewhere else. It does not mean that everything is terrible and they are lazy or stupid.
As other states famously don't do things for their regime's private gain? (Even calling it "private gain" is arguably stretching it in the case of China, the other superpowers USA and Russia are certainly much better at the private gain part)
"Depriving others of power" other states definitively do whenever they can, and they're often better at it. Depriving others of manufacturing wasn't so much China did, as something it said "yes please" to and played along with. Manufacturing was offshored to a lot of other countries than China, this was something western leadership, for whatever reason, deeply wanted.
That is equivalent to saying that the Chinese have been as good businessmen as the Americans.
"Embarrassing and poor behavior on the global stage with respect to trade" is a phrase that is equally applicable to USA.
For decades USA had succeeded by various means of bribing and blackmailing to destroy the local industries in many countries, based on the propaganda about a free global trade, forcing those countries to not protect in any way their industries that competed with US companies, because supposedly if they bought instead cheaper and better US products that will be a win-win situation, even if they become dependent on USA, but they should not worry because USA can be trusted as a commercial partner and will always provide those products in advantageous terms.
But in the recent years, USA has made a U-turn, and now it makes desperate attempts to protect its own industries in the same way that it had forbidden other countries to do and moreover USA has invented bogus legal theories that when any products that contain even a few percent of parts with a US origin are sold to someone, the buyers do not own what they have bought, but USA has the right to dictate to them what to do with those products, so that now everybody knows that USA cannot be trusted as a commercial partner and buying anything from it must be avoided.
The Chinese may have used many unfair commercial tactics, but this is really not something that Americans may criticize, because since WWII USA has been a champion of unfair commercial tactics, of which most Americans do not appear to be aware.
As an example, I have seen in USA comments that when NATO has expanded by incorporating many Eastern European countries, that was a favor made to those. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Those countries were forced to buy their memberships with many billions of $. They were blackmailed to accept in exchange for their membership to make contracts worth of many billions for buying products or services from certain US companies at greatly inflated prices, so certain well-connected US shareholders must have gained a lot of money from the NATO expansion.
This was a single example, but it was just typical for how USA has always acted in the global trade since WWII, by using any means possible to gain commercial advantages for its major companies.
If one subscribes to the theory that the only mission of any company is to make as much money for its shareholders as possible, and that the state should assist in this objective, one can see the behavior of USA as legitimate, but then the fact that China was clever enough to also ensure as much profit for its industries as possible is equally legitimate.
Perhaps you believe that, but it doesn't come across in your writing. You spent your entire post discussing and criticizing the United States, but your only mention of China has been "well America did it anyway" and "China was smart". Both true but besides the point - unless you want to continue cycles of mercantilism, in which case your criticism of the United States can be thus rejected. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.
I'd challenge you if you truly equally dislike the dominance to spend a similar amount of time criticizing China. If you are unable to do that, it's difficult to take your statement and attempt at positioning yourself as "I don't like either" at face value.
Nonetheless, right now, as an European, I know about bad past actions of China or suspicions of bad future actions of China from hearsay, as I have never been affected directly from any of them.
On the other hand, by what I consider as cheating, USA has already stolen a lot of money directly from my pocket, by many actions during the recent years, all of whom had only the purpose to eliminate competition for US companies, restrict the supply of various kinds of consumer goods and raise their prices. Millions of ordinary people all over the world have lost money because they were forced to pay inflated prices for consumer goods, as a result of the anti-competitive actions of USA. The money lost by those people were eventually transferred to the shareholders of some US companies, and also of a few South Korean companies, which were the only beneficiaries of these US actions.
These anti-competitive actions have started with the sabotage of Huawei, exactly in the moment when it was predicted that it will pass soon from the 3rd position to the top of the smartphone vendors, in front of Samsung and Apple, while using their own chipsets, which were superior to those of Qualcomm.
The result of eliminating the main competitor for Qualcomm and Samsung has been a great increase in the price of the "flagship" smartphones. Before that, I could buy a "flagship" smartphone with e.g. $600, but nowadays smartphones that cost much above $1000 or even above $1500 are considered normal.
The second big step was the sabotage of the Chinese makers of flash memory and DRAM memory, also exactly in the moment when they were positioned to take a significant share in the memory market.
This action has preserved the dominance of Micron-Samsung-Hynix, which has created the necessary conditions for enabling the huge price increase of memories after the AI companies have hoarded most of the DRAM and SSD production.
To top all, the war started by USA has diminished a lot the supply for a lot of materials used in the electronic industry, which has raised a lot of prices. Now even the PCBs have become much more expensive than in the past.
Like many people, I was forced to make a few upgrades this year, even if I will delay any other upgrades as long as possible, so I already lost a lot of money.
So yes, for the moment, when I look at my accounts, I am more inclined to criticize USA for what they have already done, than to criticize China for what they might do in the future, if we are foolish enough to become dependent on them.
Why would, for example, the United States demand that Huawei be removed from the networks of NATO allies? Could you think of a couple of reasons why that might have occurred?
If your concern is only cheap products, I have to assume you're also in favor of removing minimum wages, removing trade restrictions that the EU has enacted to for example protect its auto industry, dismantling labor unions in Europe, and removing other European market restrictions and protections which affect the United States (for example)? Would you be in favor of ASML being able to license out its technology to China? What do you think might happen? That will get you lower prices that you want. Why might you not want to do that? What is your answer for the destruction of Germany's automobile industry (and probably Italian and French automakers - remember you can't have protections in your world view here) and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that people will lose?
It seems like you're just cherry-picking things to be mad at the US about but not holding a very logically consistent position while ignoring the actions of other actors on the world stage. It's a bit like having blinders on - the US is shining so bright and it's so important to everything in your life that you're neglecting the actions and policies of others, which of course is leading you to more extremist positions (low prices at all costs even if that results in crises in Europe).
However, what matters are the actions, not the words. The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
Forbidding the use of Huawei communications equipment in critical infrastructure has absolutely nothing to do with the US "sanctions". Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country that institutes such regulations and only incompetents will use in critical infrastructure black boxes that may be controlled by another country.
Trying to equate a measure taken against the world and in favor of Qualcomm, by sabotaging the production of smartphones at Huawei, with an internal regulation like forbidding the acquisition and use of Huawei equipment for infrastructure, is a logical fallacy. Only the second of these 2 is justified.
> Would you be in favor of ASML being able to license out its technology to China?
ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
More than twenty years ago, Huawei entered the smartphone market by licensing the technology for making smartphones from Siemens. Siemens sent engineers in China, at Huawei, who stayed there for a half of year or more, to teach the Huawei engineers how to make smartphones.
Already at that time, I considered what Siemens was doing as being incredibly stupid. Of course, a few years later Huawei was making better and cheaper smartphones than Siemens, while Siemens decided to abandon the smartphone market. All that is the fault of the management of Siemens, not of anyone else. The worst part was not the licensing of the technology, even if that was very dumb, but the incapacity of the management to prioritize the continuous improvement of their products, both by becoming better and by becoming cheaper, while Huawei was very motivated to do this, so starting from at most the same position they still pulled far ahead.
I have seen plenty of companies which were forced to abandon markets, or went bankrupt or were acquired by competitors, and which blamed their fate on supposedly unfair competitors, e.g. from China. But in all those cases I have never seen any attempt from those companies to really compete. All were complacent to have products that were successful in the past and now they were making only negligible changes to them, especially from the point of view of the production costs, hoping that those products will continue to make money forever, even without any significant improvements.
I hope that the European car industry will survive, but if anything happens to it it will be only due to mismanagement, not due to China, because what should have been done to make competitive electric cars was known for decades and in Europe there was more expertise in power electronics than anywhere.
You accuse me of being in favor of things that directly contradict what I have said in my first comment.
I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
But protective measures must be chosen wisely. As long as there is no local production, there is nothing to protect. And also, if local production is protected from competition, there must exist alternative legal means to force them to design and fabricate competitive products, instead of exploiting the privilege of being protected.
Until I will see the resurrection of the European industries of memories and of smartphones, I would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.
So what? The EU and China use their own bespoke language when they want to do something that doesn't in the minds of perhaps outsiders have a good justification.
> The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Which sanctions specifically? The ones we put on Russia which raised the cost of oil and gas and other commodities? I'm sure you are not in favor of those since it caused prices to rise. Right?
> Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
The US didn't prevent Huawei from making smartphones, the US required that Huawei not be utilized in major infrastructure because of security concerns. The Chinese are obviously adversaries to the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and others and so utilizing their infrastructure which would of course have backdoors and permit Chinese spying on allied activity isn't acceptable. Seeing how Russia went on to invade Ukraine (supported by China) it proved to be a prescient move.
> Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country
Exactly like how utilizing tariffs is an internal matter of the United States or any other country and allows us to choose what we buy. So you can't criticize American tariffs and also hold this view.
> ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
They're actually not free to license their technology, believe it or not, because some of their key patents are American, but that's besides the point. But just to be clear, if allowed you would support ASML setting up shop in China, licensing its technology, and so forth to Chinese companies. If they did that, how long do you think it would be before ASML began to suffer the same fate as many other companies are now?
> I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, ...
The US (along with Europe) worked to remove protectionist trade barriers over time to lower prices which you've advocated for. Europe wanted those removed (and then went on to add protectionist trade barriers back in while the US didn't) so they could sell more products to the American market.
> which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
That's actually the fault of China. But I'm confused because you also support the destruction of local industries as long as it means lower prices. Why pay triple the cost for hand towels which could be manufactured in Portugal when you can get the same thing from China? Europe then allowed the imports of those products and your local industries collapsed or relocated manufacturing to China.
> I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
You said that but your comments don't support those claims. For example you want and are ok with the European car industry being destroyed by cheaper Chinese cars, but that would create excessive interdependencies (bye bye auto industry) and would remove locally-produced goods such as automobiles and the factories, raw material inputs, machinery, and parts used to create those vehicles.
> would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.
Europe chooses to engage with the United States for security. Europe also supports democratic Taiwan. You are blaming the wrong entity here. If Europe would no longer like the United States to support it militarily it can choose to do that. If Europe wants to support China over Taiwan they can do that. Spending 5x more on your military will result in some sort of cost increase or standard of living shuffle, but maybe that will be counteracted by additional cheap imports from China as you stop supporting democratic Taiwan? I guess it remains to be seen.
While EU and the other definitely need to deal with Chinas and its practices, the worst threat right now is USA. Speaking about egregiously unfair trade practices and poor behavior.
Obviously many businesses are working around this, but it raises questions about whether Alice Huang was actually a government spy vs someone doing shady import business. Why was her day job circumventing a government policy if she's a government spy?
Because geopolitics is a lot more complicated than leaving a group chat? This is like the inverse fallacy of Trump's take on trade deficits. Trade volume isn't the sum total of foreign policy.
> All that talk about competition being good for the market goes out the window when it comes to China seemingly.
I'm no fan of the "but muh free market" arguments, but generally competition is seen as good for the market only when it's "fair"...
If China was a national security threat, you’d think at least TEMU would be banned in the US. Instead most things in any store in the US are made in China. The restrictions are entirely political theater to score cheap political points as long as it has no impact on the day to day lives of people. Actually impose sanctions or tariffs or ban trade with China, and you’ll see how the “national security threat” angle immediately changes.
> For Ms. Huang, there was reason to celebrate. Backed by wealthy investors in Shanghai, she had just restructured a company that would soon buy billions of dollars in Nvidia artificial intelligence chips. The U.S. government had barred Chinese companies from buying the advanced chips, but Ms. Huang had sidestepped this prohibition by creating a firm, Megaspeed, through a Singaporean shell company.
> Her close relationship with Nvidia’s leader also appeared to smooth the way. Four days after the ownership change Megaspeed was named a Nvidia cloud partner, giving it access to the coveted components.
Violation sanctions, and likely knowingly, is not good for Nvidia.
If a legally authorized customer later breaks the law, that doesn't make the supplier guilty of something they didn't do. It means the regulations and enforcement are ineffective. MegaSpeed has apparently been extensively investigated by both the Commerce and Justice Depts for some time and no charges have been filed so far. If the US Govt suspects MegaSpeed is a problem, they can add them to the blocked entity list at any time with no evidence or justification.
Frankly, I agree that someone in Asia has been diverting GPUs. But the US Govt has all the power here and can block anyone they want. If NVidia was knowingly violating export controls by back-channeling GPUs, that's serious jail time and personal fines up to $1M per card. These things have the same penalties for export violations as cruise missiles - and the same national security investigative powers. If NVidia was under suspicion, spooks have been reading all NVidia's company and personal emails and texts, tapping phones, bugging conference rooms, etc. If NVidia was knowingly subverting U.S. export controls, we'd be seeing arrests and perp walks not anonymous leaks about who Jensen's banging.
They're not OK with it, they're about to pressure Singapore, Malaysia and others to ban this too. Why? Because they're a bunch of losers petrified of open competition.
But if what they discovered wasn’t usable in a prosecution, pressuring the board with his affairs isn’t unthinkable.
The public evidence around Megaspeed points to NVidia knowing and the government knowing that NVidia was doing it.
Whether the federal government chooses to arrest/prosecute the CEO of the world’s second-largest company is a different decision which is made at the level of the president. Trump did an interview last week where he said that he threatened an AI CEO with jail time:
"We said, 'Go home right now. See your wife and children. Give them a kiss good night,'" Trump added. "Because tomorrow morning, you're going to jail."
After saying the unnamed executive had "totally changed everything" after the alleged warning
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-jail-le...
If you know the AI CEOs, Amodei is unmarried and Altman is gay.
And this is an obvious example.
Wasn't it Anthropic or OpenAI that sent a warning about this exact possibility to regular employees?
Why do you think we always have to do those trainings every year about not taking supplier to strip clubs?
If you break the rules but bring in business you get to stick around. That's the actual rule.
How can you tell? Sitting on the top of a huge self inflating baloon that goes up doesn't mean you are an excellent pilot.
Was anything confidential leaked?
I'm not sure why Jensen is getting this kind of treatment.. did he treat people worse than Steve Jobs?
Would there be others who might benefit from Jensen not being at Nvidia?
But a Steve Jobs
Given what her job was, it’s hard to think that conversations were not technical in nature. Every action JH made toward China will now be examined, and he’s lost all credibility going forward. There really is no path to keep him.
The other thing this highlighted was the complete lack of governance which is the board’s job. So right after they fire JH, they need to replace most of the board with people who can handle the governance of a company of this scope.
Poor judgement is the kind of shit Zuckerberg or Musk do, and their poor judgement actually impacts the whole world in big ways, but they can't be fired because they don't give their board any control.
Jensen's management of NVIDIA has been good, and NVIDIA has generally been a great force for real innovation without much rent-seeking or corruption like the others. It's kind of sad to see Jensen be the one we topple at a time of rage against corporate power when he's among the good ones.
In fact sleeping with a subordinate creates substantial legal risk for the company.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/18h7k9g/ho...
Separately, when I look around at all the billionaires and CEO's causing immense harm to the world, Jensen is near the bottom of that list.. Musk's tantrums have global geopolitical implications including wide cultural shifts, elections and deaths. An actual convicted rapist is president of the country.
But we're all supposed to be salivating over firing this guy who has by most accounts been an incredible founder and leader over cheating or selling a couple of GPUs to China? I think it's just sad seeing this guy get punished given the amount of moral corruption amongst our leaders.
If NVIDIA doesn’t fire him, I have a feeling a lot more women from a lot of other companies may be showing up with various proposals.
Was it driven by this, as opposed to what everyone thought at the time: pure shortsighted profit-seeking? We don't know. But no one likes that it's even a thing to be concerned about.
jfc she was a spy and the new administration is going to smash nvidia for this
There are solid arguments for treason here... "doesn't affect the company", how blind are you?
There's more than one kind of shady person.
Yeah no. This doesn't even come close to treason. Treason in the US is incredibly difficult to prove, which is intentional.
That was not the case here.
If somebody you have any dealings with does something equally stupid, no matter the context, run. It doesn't matter how much you benefited from the cooperation, when somebody reveals themselves to have such poor judgement of anything, you must be aware that it's only a matter of time before he does somethig even dubmer which will cost you everything you gained so far and more.
It evidently does. You may think it shouldn't, that marital fidelity has no bearing on ability to execute as CEO, and you may even be right. But it's clear that most people disagree.
That is not a surprise. It's a known fact that these kinds of things become scandals that can hurt their careers and companies. That they nevertheless still decided to do it, is therefore a professional failure.
It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in that way. People think it matters, therefore it does. Again, you might believe that it doesn't have a direct impact, and so people shouldn't think it matters, but still they do, and you have to act in the world as it is, not as you wish it was. Simple as that.
Wild take. To me, that isn't clear at all. Most people - including me - who simply don't really care aren't loud about it online.
It's like saying that obviously, everyone agrees that JK Rowling is a bad person that shouldn't be supported and needs to be boycotted. If your world view is made up of online forums that might very well seem to be the case, but in reality, the absolute vast majority of people couldn't care less about JK Rowling's political opinions, which is quite evident given the insane sales the Harry Potter franchise keeps pulling in.
The most likely scenario is that the vast majority couldn't care less about the Jensen Huang situation, and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't care enough to demand he resign or be booted.
The evidence is their stock being down 8% since the news came out.
How else would you explain that drop?
If you don't see how secret affairs with spies and employees impacts the company then you're being willfully ignorant.
Yeah, if it's just some rando at a bar, then yeah it's primarily an issue for the family. (besides the fact that it indicates honesty issues)
Sleeping with a spy is a direct threat to the company. The spy isn't sleeping with him because she likes him. She is literally doing her job, which is to compromise the company. The issue is not the sleeping around part. The issue is the spy being brought into the company part.
If that was the case, IMO he wouldn't have come this far.
You cannot reduce a person to 'good judgement' or 'bad judgement'. It's a mix. And in this case it seems like the good outweighs the bad for both the company and its shareholders.
That's less than a slap on the wrist.
I dont like this crummy idea that you can do no wrong as long as stock price increases.
Why did NVDA fare differently than AMD or Intel?
Oh no he will no longer be able to afford anything and everything he wants and only be able to afford anything and everything he wants.
Great punishment. /s
This simply shows how the real tax is government spending, not how it gets the money. It can "tax the rich", print money, or take debt, but when it spends, it takes your computer, your fuel, your house, your car, your furniture, and your food.
I’m a gamer and I want my fucking GPUs back.
Very well, but backing CUDA is an old decision that has paid off and will continue to pay off because Nvidia has operationalized it. It can and will continue to run without Jensen Huang.
> The board should punish Huang without punishing the industry and the nation. For example by cutting his salary and stock to 0 for 2 years.
What sort of punishment is this to somebody who is already worth hundreds of billions of dollars?
You can say (rightly) that he has vastly contributed to NVidia's success. Well, he's been well compensated for that to the tune of almost $200 billion. Will the company fall apart without him now? No. No, it won't.
Also, if they fire him today, nothing will really change for a few years anyway. The short-to-medium plans are already locked in.
> In 2012, Krizhevsky, Sutskever, and Hinton used Nvidia GPUs and CUDA to train AlexNet, whose breakthrough performance helped ignite the modern deep learning boom.
Why? There were the reason why NVIDIA GPUs became so successful at the first place.
Who knows whether Jensen's current leadership isn't generating today's CUDA for NVIDIA?
The situation only exists because regulators in the 80s-20s believe that hardware should be a sanctioned monopoly. Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP, and Microsoft were all involved. If it's not Jensen it'd be someone else, there is a good reason NVIDIA is called NVIDIA and not JENSEN. Jensen's leadership is as much resonsible for CUDA as G. W. Bush's.
More directly on topic, I can't help thinking this is also a question of "what have you done for me lately" versus "what are you going to do for me tomorrow". It's hard to doubt he and the company as a whole have executed a vision and reaped the rewards, but have they been planning and doing the groundwork for another act.
A nontrivial part of which is pumping up an infrastructure bubble with NVIDIA money. It wouldn't shock me if that very aggressive and increasingly questioned strategy plays a role in whatever happens to Jensen.
This well researched video I endorse. Sure Nvidia was touch and go a the very start but beyond that, they were just locked in.
How Nvidia Won Graphics Cards - Asianometry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRZqE6H-dww
That wouldn't really punish him. It makes no difference if you have 10 billion dollars or 90 billion dollars, your life is the same.
The idea was out there and Nvidia leaned into it first. GPU compute was going to happen regardless, but credit to Nvidia they actively developed it seeing its future uses.
They got a major upside due to two things that happened outside of NVIDIA: Crypto currency and AI, both of this found GPUs to be the best available technology to retrofit. Most of the initial work in retrofitting GPUs to these workloads happened outside of NVIDIA.
So, it's not Jensen but the Crypto and AI that propelled NVIDIA.
stopped reading
Without Jensen Huang's vision, Nvidia might have remained primarily a graphics chip maker, and the deep learning revolution would not have arrived when it did. Long before deep neural networks took off, Huang backed the use of Nvidia GPUs for scientific and general-purpose computing, including the development of CUDA. In 2012, Krizhevsky, Sutskever, and Hinton used Nvidia GPUs and CUDA to train AlexNet, whose breakthrough performance helped ignite the modern deep learning boom. Nvidia's investment in programmable GPUs helped make that breakthrough possible.
The board should punish Huang without punishing the industry and the nation. For example by cutting his salary and stock to 0 for 2 years.