Why would anyone believe anything David Sacks says?

Or the current admin, which could very well be involved.

He's an official and he cites other officials, including a Democrat official. Singaporean officials have also debunked the false statements of WSJ.

If you still prefer to be a clown, you can keep believing the publications with no sources cited instead.

Because he's an official, and he cites other officials, including a Democrat official. Singaporean officials have also debunked the false statements of WSJ.

Why would you believe some publications with no official sources cited? Sounds like you'd be a clown.

Yea no one should take anything Sacks says as reliable.

He’s an administration shill and is a constant source of disinformation, especially on things like Russia and ukraine

He's an official and he cites other officials, including a Democrat official. Singaporean officials have also debunked the false statements of WSJ.

If you prefer to be a clown, you can keep believing the publications with no sources cited.

The public has insufficient information to determine one way or another. Investigations will abound. You seem to cite Himes everywhere as a rebuttal but he says he doesn't know. That is the safe epistemological position. You go much further in calling it a hit job and have been toxic throughout this thread calling people clowns who lack critical thinking. I suggest humility in the face of uncertainty.

> The public has insufficient information

Agreed, hence I think public outrage is unjustified

> Investigations will abound

Great, we're all curious

> You seem to cite Himes everywhere as a rebuttal but he says he doesn't know

As he came out of the intelligence briefing about Alice Huang, while in the hallway he was asked whether Alice is a spy and he said he doesn't know. Clearly he was not presented with irrefutable evidence or strong facts in that meeting with all the big shots of the intelligence apparatus, that's for sure.

> You go much further in calling it a hit job

Look at how coordinated this story with "anonymous sources" has been, it's blatant

> have been toxic

I presented arguments and cited sources in my initial comment. The rebuttal people came up with was "the guy that said there is no evidence is from the side I don't like grrrrrrrr". That is clownish actually.

The sources you cite do not prove your claim that it's a hit job. That's just as unsubstantiated by evidence as the claim she's a spy. So don't throw stones from glass houses. There are ways to intelligently discuss this without ad hominem.

> do not prove your claim that it's a hit job

Of course, anything short of an official statement from The Supreme Court will not suffice, right?

> So don't throw stones from glass houses

You haven't proven anything yourself or added any valuable information to the discussion. Anyway, lecture away about ad hominem if it makes you feel morally superior.

I just want to help keep HN discussion high quality with less trolling, it really has nothing to do with morals. I don't understand the hostility.

You're the only one trolling here

[delayed]

Good reminder. It wouldn't surprise me if she was or wasn't. They decided now was the time to torch jensen, shortly after POTUS met with xi xingping.

The moves jensen made by selling gpus to China illegally in a sense kept thaiwan safer from invasion. Now all this China spy news is going down and in the same week China says it's taking thaiwan again. China does always say that, but maybe this is their way of saying "we aren't getting what we want anymore". Lots of stolen GPU shipments in the last month too. Hard to say.

Sacks cites other officials, including a Democrat who says that he has not seen any convincing evidence.

Jensen is an advocate for open source models and wants the whole humanity to benefit from AI, not just the US. Maybe that's what took him down. Anyway, it's clearly a coordinated hit job.

> it's clearly a coordinated hit job.

I am beginning to think the hamhanded manner of this takedown is itself signal to politically vulnerable players. When the public sphere of society has become so vulgar and crass (starting from the top potus) we can only wonder at the level of vitriol and jungle means that happens behind the scenes in semi private.

Jensen Huang is being crucified merely by newspaper articles and innuendos. And the level of social misbahavior by this poor schmuck who happned to land in the society circle of world class SHARKS is so pathetic compared with Epstein norms of these same elite (media, academia, industry, financy, tech, government, all Epstein friends) that it is stupid of us in general public to go along with this.

I'm not a big jensen fan but I agree. So all these other CEOs have affairs and we are supposed to men will be men them and revere it. But jensen has them and oh he is the bad one. My God look at any other tech CEO. They all suck way worse then affairs do. Why don't we focus on the stuff that matters. Jensen sucked for other reasons and was better then other tech ceos in other ways.

All those guys are on TRT, that's basically a medical prescription to have affairs

Agreed, the public has been far too quick to crucify Jensen based on unproven allegations. In a world where been others have done much worse and haven't seen this level of backlash, it's an open question why Jensen was targeted and why now.

Jensen was never briefed by the intelligence agencies that he should cut ties with Alice, so he was never given the chance to sort things out quietly.

I see 3 potential orchestrators behind this hit job/"leak":

1. A foreign state actor, adversary of US (like China)

2. Ideological fundamentalists, either:

- Anti-AI/anti-capitalism Marxist types

- People that want to see AI nationalized or brought fully under Government control

- Dem official (elected or unelected) that wants to bring down the economy while it's run by the other side

3. A "China hawk" type inside the current Administration that wants to use this scandal to push legislation to track by GPS all SOTA chips and have a remote kill-switch controlled by Washington

I think either option 1 or option 3 are more likely, I hope we'll find out more in the next weeks.

What a good excuse to believe some publications with no sources cited versus actual officials (US officials and Singaporean officials). A clown costume would be fitting.

Anyway, the Dems have the exact same position as the Republicans, that there is no convincing evidence: "Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the likely incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is unsure whether a business executive who cultivated close ties with Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang is a Chinese spy, based on information he received from U.S. intelligence officials in a classified briefing earlier this week." [1]

The accusations made by WSJ, NYT and Economist have proven baseless so far, hence my point that this is a hit job.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/top-intel-dem-u...

[delayed]

Ok, so you just love a conspiracy theory and don't care about any facts.

[delayed]

Why are you so quick to condemn someone based on publications with "anonymous sources" or no sources at all? Just grow up man. The media just makes up facts all the time.

> You're also misrepresenting statements, "unsure" does not mean "no".

The Democrat came out of the intelligence briefing and in the hallway he was asked whether Alice is a spy and he said he doesn't know. Does it sound to you like strong evidence was presented to him? Does it sound like he saw irrefutable facts? Think logically.

> I'm just pointing out that dismissals from a few untrustworthy individuals

Singaporean Government came out and clearly said WSJ made up facts. Both the Republicans and Democrats are saying they haven't see convincing evidence. You still prefer to believe WSJ/NYT/Economist based on "anonymous sources"?

Do you lack critical thinking at all?

One complication here is that the whole spy-or-not distinction is far from clear-cut. One issue is that (IIUC: I'm not an expert) there's a murky distinction between "real" spies involved with spying for classified intelligence, sabotage and assassination and the like, and agents of influence who may restrict themselves to buttering up powerful people. Another is that if you're a China-based Chinese citizen like Alice Huang and one day the Chinese security services turn up out of the blue and ask you to tell then what you know about this or try to persuade someone else to do that, what are you going to do? So it may be possible to give different answers to the question without anyone outright lying.

Fair points

P.S.: To any Chinese spies in this thread: I'm full of secrets, DM for address