>> Jensen personally is all but certainly responsible for almost none of the value created

>That's a very limited view of value creation. Have you ever lead a team of people? Coached someone? Raised a child? Written a technical architecture?

I can assure you that the people you are targeting the question at, have never/rarely done any of the things you asked. I call them the socialists. They sit in judgment of people who do things while they lead their petty lives and all they look forward is the next Superbowl game, or next Netflix series.

(p.s you might like the writings of author by name Ayn Rand, Disclaimer: I'm no worshiper of Rand)

This is hilarious because Jensen’s idea of leadership is petty authoritarianism. I’m not sure if this is just HN being emotionally bought in to great man theory or financially bought in to NVDA, but most of their value creation is on the back of gamer chips being useful for crypto and later AI.

The children yearn for a tyrant I guess.

> HR, accounting, leadership, PM's, engineers, support, etc. All of them contribute to the value creation

Not sure about HR TBH

> That's a very limited view of value creation. Have you ever lead a team of people? Coached someone? Raised a child? Written a technical architecture?

Yup, all of it. And at no point have I considered myself as 10,000x more valuable than any of the team members I led. Yet that's exactly what is done to billionaire CEOs.

You'll notice I did not say Jensen didn't create ANY value.

You think he hired everyone personally?

CEOs in large companies do not play a role like that.

This tendency to credit an entire technological breakthrough to the top of an org chart is such a bizarre cliche from a systems perspective. Breakthroughs are not conceived from whole cloth within the corner offices of isolated autocracies; they are the product of horizontal networks of social capital as engineers continually circulate across firms.

Besides, individual contributors aren't incentivized to innovate insofar as we're not structurally positioned to capture a windfall.

I recognize the narrative that an army of world-class engineers is essentially inert until an executive visionary breathes purpose into them, but that's a structural property of the firm. It's a choice to route all surplus through the board and major shareholders, and to starve out any innovation that happens outside of those venues.

> Those employees didn’t create it when a huge number of them worked at AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, or TI.

I agree: we must do everything we possibly can to aggrandize the already wealthy and powerful. The glory must accumulate in their account, and the less that goes to their subordinates, the better.

lol

They should fall first to AI replacement as they're the least useful people in a company and most susceptible to ruining the company's reputation by screwing a Chinese spy and a hot local chic.

But what do you hate about it? They can stick up for themselves surely? They don't need you to protect them do they?

Sure it might be hard to run a company - it wasn't like he actually did most of that though was it?