At the time I didn't think it would happen because of impact on Nvidia's stock price, but at that point we didn't know about his second affair - with Kimberly Powell.
I'd suggest this latest revelation makes his position untenable, especially if the board found out about the second affair via a source other than Huang himself. He should have spilled the beans on that when the first affair came out, not that it would necessarily have saved him, but withholding the information - if that's what he did - should condemn him. It's another serious lapse in judgement and a failure of integrity that is not befitting of one of the most powerful corporate leaders on earth.
Goodness knows how his wife is feeling at this point. Certainly makes his apology from a couple of days back ring rather hollow.
EDIT: The fact that someone like Jensen Huang - who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy as opposed to a nitwit - can somehow completely implode his life in almost the most ridiculous way imaginable does give me some hope that at least some of the troublemaker ne'er do wells that have wielded so much power over us all over the past decade or so might also experience some just desserts in the not too distant future.
Someone mentioned that the 2nd affair was known about by the board for a long time, and this is pretty common in boards. They don't really care, they just keep it in their pocket until they need the ammo to fire someone. It sounds right to me, affairs are very hard to keep secret for someone that public, and then this news dropped right after the first one.
As bad as cheating is morally, we don't really know how his wife feels or if they had some open relationship type arrangement, and it's not really material to his running the company because it's been doing very well during all of that. I don't think it makes much sense to fire someone over this, it's more like a power struggle with other parties vying for control.
The issue isn’t a moral one from a a company perspective, it’s a conflict of interests issue.
Dating a customer and subordinate potentially undermines objectivity in customer pricing, customer chip access, promotions, performance, etc. That’s why it’s explicitly forbidden in Nvidia (and most companies) code of conduct
this is like a theory and practice situation. in theory this is conflict of interest issue possibly undermines objectivity and so on. in practice Nvidia thrives and the man is a substantial reason of this. removing him will be plain stupid from the point of view of the company's performance.
But keeping him potentially exposes them legally. If she ever accused him of using his authority to coerce her into said relationship (purely hypothetical), the board is now complicit in covering up legit criminal behavior. This is why conflict of interest policy exists.
fair point but is it solvable by other means? like the board "to conduct investigation", discuss with this woman if she has been coerced and if she claims she is not — avoid firing him?
Why should we assume corporate codes are morally just though? I do not. In fact I would argue this is evidence that company codes are in a general sense draconian and/or disconnected from social reality under capitalism, etc.
Many (most?) companies have specific policies against romantic relationships in the office, especially with subordinates.
It isn't necessarily about morality if there are rules in place that all employees, c-suite or otherwise, are expected to follow.
I don't know Nvidia internal policy, but assuming their HR policies include such a stipulation it shouldn't be treated as a "rules for thee, not me for" situation.
> As bad as cheating is morally, we don't really know how his wife feels or if they had some open relationship type arrangement, [...]
If that's the case and she backs him up on this, then it's sordid but not cheating and _that_ part of the scandal can be overlooked, but espionage is a different matter.
Look around these threads. There's a great deal of suspicion of espionage, and then there's the actual spy that compromised him (so, espionage -- a CEO of that importance falling for a honeypot is a big deal in and of itself).
Suspicion of espionage based on what evidence? Also the "spy" isn't confirmed to be a spy, and there are other explanations that are more plausible in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Assuming the second affair claims are legit, he was also having an affair with a subordinate. That's a huge violation of many corporations' policies, for the average worker I'd expect its an immediate termination offense.
Yes, but at that level, and with less press attention, that sort of thing can be swept under a rug with enough $$$. Not defending it, just saying that it might not have been enough on its own. But cheating is definitely not very good since if you cheat on your spouse you might cheat on your employer.
Oh for sure, I assume these situations are swept under the rug until it becomes politically or financially useful for the board to leverage it.
I also fundamentally disagree with that being how rules are enforced though (I assume most people do). Rules either need to he enforced universally or not exist at all.
Human beings do as human beings are. You'll not get perfection. Which is not to justify anything here, but there was a Star Trek episode I remember where ensign Crusher stepped on some flowers on a planet where all rules violations begat the death penalty, no exceptions, so if your rule is "[r]ules either need to he enforced universally or not exist at all" then beware that you might end up with "rules do not exist at all", which is probably not really what you want. We will have some sweeping of things under the rug, and it's often unfair and unjust, but the alternative is not necessarily easy to stomach either when taken to absurdum.
In that example its just absurd to have a rule that stepping on flowers is illegal.
In the case of Jensen, my point is that many companies have rules against office romance, and the idea of sleeping with your subordinate is an obvious case that would be covered.
Some random middle manager would be fired on the spot if it became known they were sleeping with a subordinate. Such an open and shut case, based on my experience with various tech HR departments, should be enforced regardless of level in the company or the rule shouldn't exist at all.
Its the same problem we see today with insider trading. Its worth giving Martha Stewart house arrest for but not worth investigating members of Congress when they or their spouses seem to consistently best the market by trading before big news breaks.
That matters I would think. A concern for a powerful person is whether knowledge of an affair could give someone else leverage. If you are keeping up appearances then that signals appearance (and secrets) have value.
Having your house unknowingly bugged by a spy makes you a victim. Having an affair with a spy, in what now appears to be a broader pattern of questionable ethical behavior, not so much.
If your lover gets recruited by a spy agency you are a victim of spying.
The ethics of having an affair depend entirely on the relationship between the people involved. I can't pass judgement on that in general. Having an affair with customers or subordinates can be problematic, but I wouldn't call it unethical. In any event, it is completely separate from the spying allegations.
Yeah I mean they don't seem to care about the moral implications or view it as poor judgement like some people here say, or else they would act when they find out. They just see ammunition..
By the way that is an interesting insider trading question.
You didn’t get a tip or give anyone a tip. You are not the only one whose decision affects the outcome. However you choose to divest yourself of shares by selling them, and then bring it up.
I am not a securities lawyer or an expert on case law. But would the board member be able to file a Form 4 and sell shares, before their actions that may affect the company?
Even knowing that the board is considering to fire him should fall under insider trading. Its one thing to speculate on board actions, its another to be on the board and know what you or other members may be planning to do.
> if they had some open relationship type arrangement
His public statement about hurting his family suggests they did not.
If I was in his position and I did, my statement would be something like "We're not monogamous, and we're both content with that arrangement. That was meant to stay private, and I'm sorry it came to public attention".
I think some people who are in open relationships of various sorts would handle it the way he did. Some amount of women are at least willing to tolerate a one-sided open relationship so long as it does not result in public humiliation. Most people in an open relationship, either partially or fully open, do not publicly advertise it as it's non-conventional.
I thought I covered the privacy angle well enough; once it's exposed, admitting it's cheating seems far worse to me than admitting it's an open relationship.
Cheating may be more conventional, but it's almost universally considered immoral.
> who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy
This is a common fallacy. Often being incredibly smart in a few areas leaves you incredibly naive in others. If nothing else, your success in some domains will lead to overconfidence in others.
Yeah, he should leave. Next earnings call is Nov 17, he needs to be out by then so that he is not a distraction (CFO could do the call).
As a large shareholder and world's 7th [now 12th] richest person he would certainly retain a lot of power, even with a new CEO. Time to start his own personal VC firm or something.
There is some nepotism at Nvidia, those people are likely going to be very annoyed with him since their positions may not now be tenable.
What is it that he is supposedly divulging? What is it that she is influencing?
Jensen was incentivized to sell as many chips as possible. He openly tried to sell as many as possible and openly lobbied to sell to China. As CEO, he is obliged to do that.
I don't remember the exact points, but several times during the conversation he dismissed analogies or ideas out of hand without rebuking any of their substance. The biggest one I remember is Dwarkesh likening GPUs to uranium or something. Jensen just shut it down like it was absurd without addressing the core premise of the comparison: that AI makes hardware dangerous in the same way that tech makes fissile material dangerous.
I can think of good counter arguments for most of the things Dwarkesh pushed on, the uranium bit included, but that makes it all the more frustrating. Jensen almost refused to respond with substance at times, choosing instead to just dismiss or argue an adjacent point.
EDIT: The fact that someone like Jensen Huang - who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy as opposed to a nitwit - can somehow completely implode his life in almost the most ridiculous way imaginable does give me some hope that at least some of the troublemaker ne'er do wells that have wielded so much power over us all over the past decade or so might also experience some just desserts in the not too distant future.
Jensen, like the rest of us are vulnerable to sin, temptation and suffering. No one leaves unscathed in this life
> who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy
To an extremely ignorant person on the matter like me, and genuinely asking, what has he achieved in terms of engineering and development, that makes you think he's smart? Or do you mean in the sense of knowing its way through business and politics? Idk I always find difficult to believe that people really think that CEOs are smart, when they commonly are not involved what so ever in any scientific leading or research, and just funnel money to a product that make them richer.
But I prefer to believe I'm wrong and would like to hear form the other side.
Not really, there were other GPU manufacturers who aren't around any more and didn't get propped by those waves. There's no denying that the company was doing more things right than their competitors.
P.S. As a linux user I ascribe to the "FU nvidia" Linus' school of thought (because drivers) and I am happily running a Framework desktop instead of an nvidia rig. But credit where credit's due.
Not really, they were casting about for these kind of opportunities since day 1 in the early 00s, and pushing it with GPGPU talks at universities in the 2010s. And eventually it bore fruit.
Jensen has absolutely made his own luck here. They were in the right place waiting for the right time for decades before it hit.
idk maybe successfully founding & managing (currently) BIGGEST technological company for 3 decades,
that's main driver behind the biggest technological innovation of humankind requires you to be quite smart, don't you think?
wtf
>terms of engineering and development, that makes you think he's smart?
yes, because only engineering and development requires smartness! Do you really think it is true? wtf
>Idk I always find difficult to believe that people really think that CEOs are smart, when they commonly are not involved what so ever in any scientific leading or research, and just funnel money to a product that make them richer.
If you really believe that picking what to invest is easy, then go ahead to the stock market - you should outperform it easily then.
Well mate, sorry for triggering you, apparently. As I said, my perspective is that he's no smart person to the point of being reference for someone.
You could have been way less toxic in you comment any way. That was a very unnecessary tone.
Since you're not OP, I still don't understand how that's a smart person to look up to.
Everything you said is someone that had contacts and knew how to put money in certain places. Smart for me is absolutely related to engineering and science. There is no product for him to sell it, if there is no research and each of those research are way smarter, in my opinion, than CEO.
But the world is a funny place, research also doesn't existe without funding so we need more Huangs, I guess?
Being smart and having full cognitive control over the animal part of your brain are completely orthogonal to each other - loads of intellectuals were also massive uncontrollable sexual deviants in one way or another.
He probably didn't come clean about the second one because there's actually 5+ and if he came clean about everything he'd definitely be done
He shouldn’t be shagging subordinates or senior employees of customers, basically. In a way, the alleged spy thing is just icing on the cake; well-run companies won’t tolerate the conflict of interest even without a spy being involved.
But not with his employees or staff at companies he sells to, he’s the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, being paid billions, it’s not a big ask.
Random low level managers in a supermarket have been fired for sleeping with their staff.
People are using the argument that Larry Ellison, Brin, Bill Gates, and other tech moguls also did this and really didnt face major consequences.
When former Intel CEO Brian Kraznich did it he was on the chopping block and they used as an excuse to fire him.
But Nvidia's board has a history of being favorable to Jensen-- he hasn't done much wrong and typically they will reward performance. First responsibility is share-holders but there is a lot of self-interest at play. If they don't fire him they could face action by government or get sued by shareholders, if they do fire him they deflate the value of the share holdings further.
Now that Nvidia has blown up so much they think they can do fine without him -- but it can easily turn into the next Intel. It most likely won't 100x in two years but it can certainly crash if there are poor decisions made. If the CFO is rumored to replace him, changing leader from a founder engineer to a finance person isn't likely to go well.
Come on, there is a difference between a company having some Nvidia, and sleeping with a salesperson at a company with a massive conflict who wants to buy lots of your hardware and import it in China, possibly in breach of laws.
Do you really think this is the same as sleeping with a random person at a company which happens to use some Nvidia products?
That banging customers and execs is a huge conflict of interest and security risk. There is a good reason if C-suites typically bang escorts instead of their colleagues.
> The fact that someone like Jensen Huang - who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy as opposed to a nitwit - can somehow completely implode his life in almost the most ridiculous way imaginable...
Mmm. Infidelity is very common. [0] What's fairly uncommon is getting caught in a way that requires the infidelity to be acknowledged. Just ask the French. ;)
[0] ...it's almost as if monogamy is an unnatural state of being for many (but definitely not all!) people...
> can somehow completely implode his life in almost the most ridiculous way imaginable
oh boy, get outside and take a deep fresh breath of air. how limited can life experience
be if someone feels that having an sexual affair is about the same like completely imploding ones own life..
I am not sure why several top comments here express sadness for the wife and affected loved ones. Do you actually feel bad? Why is it necessary to bring this pseudo sympathy to this topic? The topics are: what are the impacts to the stock market as a whole as there's a precarious arrangement at the moment with circular financing and Nvidia being a disproportionate piece of the stock market, national security and many other problems that affect hundreds of millions of people. But let us weep for the billionaire families of this soap drama. Get over yourselves.
It is weird now that you mention it. I worked in C# and .NET for a long time. In theory for 20 years. In practice I wasn't writing much C# after 2019 even though the team I led still used it.
I guess I... just got bored of it, and fed up of Microsoft. I came to hate Windows and having to work on Windows so much that it sort of tainted C# for me. I'm not saying I'd never use it again but, whilst it will run cross-platform nowadays, so will loads of other languages and frameworks, so it's never at the top of the list when it comes to choosing something for a new project.
As for TypeScript? Absolutely loathe it. I'll use it professionally when I have to, but I'd never use it for one of my own projects. It's just so ugly I don't even like looking at it. I get why people like it but, for me, it's not enough. If I'm staring at something all day then, I'm sorry, it can't be ugly.
But, strangely, I still use and enjoy VS Code from Microsoft, and have no plans to switch to anything else.
(I also still have an Office subscription - or whatever it is Microsoft are calling that suite nowadays, I don't care - because I still use both Excel and Word fairly frequently. I could probably get by without, but I actually quite like Office - even on the Mac.)
I just write my TS like I write my C#. They are similar enough, IMO. I ended up writing this as a precursor to our team's move from TS to C#: https://typescript-is-like-csharp.chrlschn.dev/
The main things I don't like about TS are the volatile tooling, bad habits from other devs (not declaring types), compromised ORMs, require lots of package hunting, and module system.
I needed to be on Windows for work though and, sadly, often still do, so the association is strong.
The thing is, now most things I do target some flavour of Linux - and although I could write C# and target Linux with absolutely no problem - there are a lot of other options that C# has to complete with. Granted those options would also, at least in theory, have been viable options on Windows but it definitely would have felt a bit like paddling against the flow to host Ruby on Rails or Python or whatever on Windows.
And if I want to target command line or desktop with something cross-platform I'm going to compile to a native binary that requires minimal dependencies, so Rust feels like a more natural fit than C#, especially with Microsoft's desktop UI story being such a dog's breakfast (and even more-so when you account for cross-platform).
Again, in a commercial environment, I could imagine using Electron for that sort of thing because that's what most companies do (but because everything I do nowadays is backend, web, or systems integration, I haven't written a desktop app in a commercial context in 13 years, and I haven't written a command line app in that context since just before the pandemic). However, for my own projects I want to hew as closely as possible to my own principles and ideals and, for them, it'll be a cold day in hell before I ship a desktop or command line app that needs some giant runtime like Electron as a dependency.
Again, the point is that C#, whilst in many ways a great language, doesn't come out as the frontrunner.
> If he had stored an important password on a postit on his laptop, would you call that a private matter?
Whoa, whoa, who, whoa, whoa! You know the rules: no leaking next week’s headlines in advance. What kind of outfit do you think we’re running here?
I do agree though: regardless of whether the woman is a Chinese agent or not, and regardless of whether he knew or suspected (I doubt he did), this affair represents a serious lapse in judgement that has implications far beyond his personal life.
If you can be compromised personally, you can certainly be compromised professionally.
I suspect it won’t happen, because it would likely tank the stock, but really he should be thinking about resigning.
Man, fuck this website. Opened on mobile and trying to admire the painting and I get 4 popups in a row obscuring it every few seconds. Fuck whoever designed that and doubly fuck whoever signed off on it. Absolutely abhorrent behaviour that is totally hostile and disrespectful to both the user and to the material being presented.
Thanks: I should give it a go. Safari runs really well on iOS but the lack of an adblocker is a real pain. Firefox + ublock origin has been my goto on desktop since before Chrome deprecated Manifest V2 support, so I probably should at least try it on mobile.
The trick, I think - at least this has helped me - is not to use the AI to write for me, nor to use it to rewrite my drafts, but is to do the writing myself and to ask it for editorial feedback. This forces me to think through what I’ve written more deeply, and then rewrite it according to that deeper understanding.
I think if I used AI for the actual writing then, (a) there’d be a lot missing, and (b) I’d rob myself of much of the value, in better understanding, of writing myself.
We’re not all the same so YMMV, but this is what I’ve found from using AI in various ways to see if and how it can help with writing.
With respect to seeking feedback, my angle is that: even if you do agree with the feedback then what they do. Are you going to take it as is? Are you going to come up with it and phrase it in your own way?
What next? Next, what if there's a bunch more feedback that you agree with and you incorporate it. Then, where do we go from there?
Can you even go back to (b) and make your own edits at this point? I'm not sure and I worry about a slippery slope where you stray too far from your own original form -- so I landed on not seeking feedback either.
note: this all is definitely under progress and as I'm looking at it it's very noisy with all of the formatting... just finally getting my site put together
For me I take the view that it’s similar to asking a human for feedback. I sift it, ditch what I’m not interested in or don’t agree with, do more research on what might be interesting, then decide what I want to incorporate and rewrite from there.
On grammar, typos, and the like I tend to take LLM feedback as read in most cases. Beyond this I think it’s a mistake not to do the legwork yourself, just as you’d have to if you’ve ever worked with a human editor.
But the LLM is helpful because it reduces the cycle time for feedback, which helps maintain momentum - helps me anyway.
It's certainly a difference, but it's a similar kind of conversation to what I'd have had in the past with people about pieces I've written. I.e., where a human tried to understand my writing and explained that understanding back to me, as you've said, only now it's the LLM doing it.
Of course it won't be the same, but it wouldn't be the same if I had the same conversation with multiple different people either, so I'm not sure that's the biggest problem.
The thing is, you can either find this process useful, or you can not find it useful, and I think both of these are valid viewpoints.
I'm simply laying out what works well for me, and I already (I hope) made it clear that it might not work so well for everyone, because to some extent we all work differently.
Yes, of course it does reduce the cycle time. And it certainly can open you up to new areas that you didn't consider.
If you were to ask some friends to give you feedback, they might not have to expertise to propose those new ideas.
Instead, you'd have to explain to them and try to catch them up to speed. It'd be painful, slow, and maybe not result in any direct improvements. Maybe it'd only help you explain to the _next_ friend you have to bother. Maybe you'd decide that you want to be friends with some people knowledgeable in that area.
That's one of the main things I think LLMs are really good at, is isolating us in favor of speed and convenience.
I generally don't think LLMs writing prose for humans is a good idea (except for perhaps the most boring kinds of copywriting) but I feel a lot more positive about LLMs as reviewers, even if I don't necessarily use them myself often. My positivity comes from how relatively easy it generally is to validate feedback on a piece of writing you're intimately familiar with.
Gotta say, I don't relate to your concerns about "stray[ing] too far" _in the short term_. I think if reading LLM feedback has upset your original thinking that catastrophically you may have either been wrong (in which case, good that you received feedback early?) or writing with little intention.
However in the long term I can totally see how you could get into a habit of laziness, trusting the LLM to fix your stuff, or mindlessly applying fixes without really considering them.
re: straying too far. I see what you mean but I didn't mean if the feedback itself was to influence your writing
I meant if you were to accept and incorporate the feedback (even if done manually yourself) a handful of times, then at what point have you strayed far enough. Once, twice? If you set it down and revisit, then what if you forget which parts you came up with yourself?
I guess my reasoning here is I never want to guess which is my own ideas/writing. That's too slippery of a slope.
> I guess my reasoning here is I never want to guess which is my own ideas/writing.
Wow! Okay, I wouldn't have guessed that was your concern. How do you feel about feedback from a human editor then? Or is that preferable because it's from a real person? I could empathise with that distinction, TBH.
One of the things I ask AI to help edit my writing is a consistency pass, making sure my ideas hang together well. The real test is to see if other humans understand it.
I tell mine that line editing and formatting are the very last polish.
Don't worry, once you're on one of the naughty lists, it's going to spread by itself. Your domain will never be off of all lists simultaneously, it goes around and you can keep chasing it if it's your domain but you'll never convince everyone before another has copied it again
Most vendors of such lists don't have a contact method, don't respond, or say they're only aggregating a set of secret sources and it's up to me to look for those. Only a handful will actually respond to requests to re-evaluate the allegation, and remove you if it was/is false
> I got rid of all my skills and just set it to medium.
Yeah, exactly. I find increasingly little use for skills. I'd put it down to switching projects and stacks a lot but maybe... they just aren't as useful any more?
I wasn’t really using skills but then our project management tool added an MCP so I made a skill for grabbing tickets from the backlog, creating worktrees with the right naming convention, and moving ticket states for me automatically.
At the same time when I’m exploring new feature requests I now use the skill to write up the requirements and estimates into as many tickets as needed.
any prompt that you’re running a lot, make it a skill. i don’t make a lot of new ones. but still am using ones i made months ago and have been refining.
The thing is, it's not actually that hard to spend at that kind of rate.
I wouldn't say this was the norm, but I have burned through £1k of tokens in a couple of days before. And, on that same gig, I realised a test I was considering running would burn £2.5k worth of tokens over the course of a few hours so spent a couple of hours of my own time re-engineering it to get that down to £150.
The point is that I don't necessarily know that spending a shitload of money on tokens really tells us anything useful. If he's getting a return on that investment, fine, whatever.
Obviously most of us couldn't afford to spend that much ourselves, no matter how much value it might deliver, and many of our employers wouldn't be too happy if we spent it on their dime either. Equally, if you can, and it's delivering real value, then I don't see why you wouldn't?
At what point do you buy a Mac studio or AMD Gorgon Halo and try running some of these tasks in local models? Surely don’t need frontier models for all this work.
You definitely don't need frontier models for all this work.
And, in fact, I got it from £2500 to £150 by careful model selection (I ran a trial over a small dataset with different models until I found the least expensive/capable model that would reliably do what I needed), using a local model for one step, and paring down the inputs as well so the token count plummeted.
Yeah I see the same thing at work. Most of the people burning crazy numbers of tokens aren't doing any amazing work. They're just using fable to write their emails and do their web searches.
They feel like they're super smart but it's just as smart as hiring a $500k/yr PhD as a PA to schedule your meetings and answer the phone. Sure it does a good job but you're just wasting money and abilities.
They feel super edgy and bleeding edge but all they really do differently is switching the AI chat from auto to the most expensive option all the time. When I see what they're using it for they're only grasping the basics of its abilities.
They're also people sending 2 page AI generated emails that make no sense for literally everything where a "Yeah sure let's do that" would have sufficed.
Unfortunately most of these are business leaders who just want to look edgy and "all in on AI" so we can't really limit their tokens. Yet they're also the ones saying we spend too much and want to limit some of our dev teams actually putting it to good use.
Management succumbed to AI psychosis, and so we were directed to show that we were adopting and using AI, but what we were using it for was not considered important. So we went out of our way to burn as many tokens as possible.
If you tell Claude to be inefficient and burn as many tokens as it can, it’ll happily oblige. It will also offer useful advice as to how to use even more tokens.
- Mac Studio M5 Ultra, 80-core GPU, 256GB memory, 2TB storage -- $11,299.00.
- Power (385w continually 100% of month) is $40/mo (my regional) or $480 annually. Let's say power is 3x more expensive in California, which it probably is, that's still only $1,440 annually in power.
The Studio M5 Ultra has a worklife of at least 3 years.
it's going to be quite slower than remote providers, won't be able to run full models, only quantised, and for more cost than the highest Claude subscription tier where you can do roughly 60-100M token per month at 200$, e.g. 7200 for three years. It makes sense if you prioritize local AI but not really otherwise sadly.
You have to be using an incredibly small amount of usage for your math to math here. Go price out a few MW or better site then ask a neo cloud how much that same amount of compute will cost at an API.
Yup, run multiple agents on expensive model in loop via API.
You can do it if your employer has endless pockets.
Example: $30/1M input tokens (I don’t count output or cache, for simplification), you have several daily agents for everything => 3M tokens daily per agent * 10 agents ~> $900/day => $328k/year (API spending)
If I were spending $200k on tokens then I sure would expect some mind boggling results. I don't know much about what this person is doing with them and maybe they've launched several companies or created several new inventions .... but that's what I'd expect personally at that spend.
> Granted, I'm not sure there existed a computer in the 90s that was powerful enough to encode or decode it.
In software, quite possibly not[0].
But I'm sure we could have built hardware decoders that were up to decoding AV1 or HEVC back in the 90s no problem, had those codecs existed at the time.
[0] Somewhat later than the timeframe we're talking about, but I remember with pain the moment I realised my 600MHz Athlon, with 256MB RAM and 32MB GeForce 256 video card, was thoroughly obsolete because it couldn't decode and play the original Half Life 2 preview without stuttering, screen tearing and, indeed, crashing.
And supply factors. Given that one of these two people spoke of multiple types of type and multiple types of drives, it’s possible that the other one just only ever worked with very high quality media.
At the time I didn't think it would happen because of impact on Nvidia's stock price, but at that point we didn't know about his second affair - with Kimberly Powell.
I'd suggest this latest revelation makes his position untenable, especially if the board found out about the second affair via a source other than Huang himself. He should have spilled the beans on that when the first affair came out, not that it would necessarily have saved him, but withholding the information - if that's what he did - should condemn him. It's another serious lapse in judgement and a failure of integrity that is not befitting of one of the most powerful corporate leaders on earth.
Goodness knows how his wife is feeling at this point. Certainly makes his apology from a couple of days back ring rather hollow.
EDIT: The fact that someone like Jensen Huang - who I'd previously considered to be an incredibly smart guy as opposed to a nitwit - can somehow completely implode his life in almost the most ridiculous way imaginable does give me some hope that at least some of the troublemaker ne'er do wells that have wielded so much power over us all over the past decade or so might also experience some just desserts in the not too distant future.
reply