Jensen Huang just gave his take on the AI slowdown debate and he's completely against it: "I completely disagree that AI is going to be the end of the world in 2030." and he doesn't stop there: "they must be doing it for ulterior reasons, maybe it's political, maybe attention grabbing." it's a bold thing to say while Dario Amodei, Geoffrey Hinton and half the field are asking the exact opposite. but here's the part that bothers me. nobody serious is actually claiming the world ends in 2030. that's a cartoon version of the argument, and it's a lot easier to dismiss than what people are really saying. the real worry is quieter, we're building systems faster than we can understand or control them and safety is getting a fraction of the attention capabilities get. Anthropic literally published that only 6% of their compute goes to safety, while AI is already doing 26% of the work that builds the next AI. so calling that a "hoax" feels less like an argument and more like a way to end the conversation. and it's worth remembering who's talking. Jensen sells the shovels, every call to slow down is a call to buy fewer of his chips. that doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean he's the last person i'd take a "don't worry" from. maybe he genuinely believes it, maybe he's just protecting the boom. what do you actually think, real concern or overblown panic?