And I agree. You’re completely right it is totally fucking obvious beyond any reasonable doubt.

What you’re not seeing is that the infractions you describe are just drops in a bucket. This guy created billions of dollars and is responsible for the revolution in ML we see today. It is through his foresight that ML is even possible at the scale we see today. He changed the world. He is one of the core people sitting in the center of a global paradigm shift that will change our lives as we know it. You thought this ai stuff was just chat bots? Now it’s writing our software and dismantling academia piece by piece. It’s obvious what’s coming next.

What should be ALSO fucking obvious is that kind of change makes fucking a couple employees and some random honey pot from China basically NOTHING in comparison. It doesn’t fucking matter if there’s some unfairness or some kind of bullshit conflict of interest or favoritism in the company because that shit is MINOR.

You said sometimes obvious things need to be restated implying that it needs to be restated for me specifically. Let me fucking straight with you. YOU are the one fucking blind to the obvious. Wake up.

I guarantee you the board doesn’t give a fuck about any of this shit. They were just waiting for an opportune time to oust him. It was the same for bill clinton. God ousting him for favoritism when favoritism basically exists for almost every company out there? Seriously?

If you’re a board member and you’re making billions because of Jensens decisions as a ceo, are you gonna give two shits about favoritism or Jensen fucking some employees? Fuck no you wouldn’t.

▲

rmunn a day ago | parent | next [-]

Are you saying that because he invented something that changed the world, his misbehavior should be ignored? If that's what you're saying, I wonder where you would draw the line: an affair? Embezzling? Murder? At what point would the misbehavior be so bad that it should not be excused by his past inventions? At what point does the inventor not get to use "But I'm changing the world" as an excuse?

Or perhaps I'm misreading you. You did, after all, open with saying that you agree with my comment that you're replying to. So if your only point is "the board didn't care, that was an excuse to get rid of him" and you're not excusing his behavior, then sure, I agree with that statement. His behavior was an open secret among the company, after all; they had to have known, but were willing to ignore it when it was convenient to them. Which is immoral of them, let me add. I agree with you that that's what they did. I do NOT agree (and I hope you're not saying) that it was ethical or moral of them to ignore it until it became publicly known.

▲

adrian_b a day ago | parent | next [-]

Obviously he must be punished, at least for having an affair with a subordinate, which until now is the only thing that is certainly wrong, from the PoV of the company.

However, if he is fired, that is more a punishment for the company than for him, because he is extremely rich and at the age of retirement, so he does not work because he needs to, but just because he enjoys it.

A real punishment for him would be to lose without compensation a part of his NVIDIA shares.

If it is ever proven that he broke any export control law, then a punishment for that is a decision for the judicial system.

▲

threethirtytwo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Are you saying that because he invented something that changed the world, his misbehavior should be ignored?

Yes or at best give him a slap on the wrist. You are not comprehending the scale of change that he is involved in. He is shifting the course of humanity. People don't go to jail for cheating. Right? Why don't people go to jail? Because it's not that big of a deal. It's wrong. But the punishment fits the crime.

There are ALSO no specific bylaws for firing an executive for an affair. ALSO because it's minor. Most successful executives that are making the company a shitload of value won't fire someone for that.

>Which is immoral of them

Strict morals is a sort of evil in itself. It displays a lack of intelligence and awareness of how morally grey reality is. In changing the world, Jensen could be involved with the lives billions. He could be responsible for immense poverty or immense wealth and greatness for all of humanity. We don't know, but stopping all of this because of an affair is ludicrous.

▲

rmunn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Strict morals is a sort of evil in itself. It displays a lack of intelligence and awareness of how morally grey reality is.

Now I know what kind of person you are. This is the last time I will (if I notice your username) respond to anything you say. I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. Bye.

	▲	card_zero 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not the case that doing good makes one's bad deeds less bad. In isolation, I think that quoted line is (morally) correct, though. Moral conundrums abound, I've got a list of several hundred written down somewhere, so being hardline about everything is just a way to be more aggressively wrong. (I'll note that the question of whether to punish somebody is separate from the question of whether they did wrong. What's punishment? It evolved alongside payment and vengeance, and now it has extra functions, such as deterrence, and taking power away from people who are statistically likely to do further bad things. It's related to the paradox of tolerance, and it's a desperate measure. It's not rational. The world should not run on punishment! The rational thing to do is talk everything out. But since that doesn't happen, punishment is the suboptimal but practical solution to conflict. When it comes to punishment, we do take people's good deeds into account. Don't ask me how that should apply to Huang, this is just a footnote.)
	▲	threethirtytwo 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I could give a shit. You’d do well not to respond to anyone.

▲

whoanoway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

bigstrat2003 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> This guy created billions of dollars

No, the engineers he employed did. They will continue to do so after his departure.

	▲	adrian_b a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That is true, but even if a good CEO does not create the value of the company, but his employees, bad CEOs prevent their employees from doing effective work. There are too many bad CEOs, so the CEOs who are not bad, like the CEOs of NVIDIA and AMD, must still be praised, and the success of their companies was conditioned by them not being bad CEOs. There are a lot of examples when a bad CEO, coming after a not bad CEO, has destroyed a very successful company in a few years.
	▲	threethirtytwo 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		jensen is pretty technical. He's like elon, very involved with the tech and the day to day. His direction shapes the product MORE than any single engineer. But, I agree with you. The engineers as a whole shape the direction of the product more than jenson. But make no mistake, jensen is a critical part of the whole.