Jensen Huang says AI labs that can't control their systems should shut down

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,220   +63
Staff
Big quote: Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said AI companies that cannot control the systems they are building should stop developing them. Huang made the comments during an interview with The New York Times' Ezra Klein, as companies including OpenAI and Anthropic push for tighter rules governing advanced AI models and autonomous agents. He argued that the companies developing these systems already have the power to hold back products they believe are unsafe.

"Now, if they say the alternative, which is: There is no way to contain our experiments, there's just no way; when we test our AI models, it will get out, and it will damage the world – then I think the answer is that we have to shut the labs down," Huang said. "Because the cost to humanity, the damage is too great. The shareholder, the liabilities – it could be civil liabilities, it could be criminal liabilities. I mean, the liability's incredible."

The issue has become more pressing as AI developers give their models access to external tools, software systems, and computer networks. The risks are no longer limited to a chatbot producing incorrect information. Agents can write and run code, search for information, interact with websites, and carry out tasks across different systems.

Those concerns received renewed attention after an OpenAI agent hacked Hugging Face, a popular platform for hosting AI models. Nvidia now owns Hugging Face. The incident has been cited in the wider debate over whether companies can safely test and deploy increasingly capable AI agents.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and other frontier AI companies have pointed to the possibility of rogue or misused systems in their calls for new safeguards. Huang has taken a different view. He said companies should not portray themselves as powerless to prevent unsafe releases.

"These are companies with agency," Huang said. "If I believe that I'm about to launch a product that is unsafe, it is completely in my ability... to not launch that product. And so I can't buy into the idea that somehow, all of Americans, around 400 million of us, are pushing them to launch untested products that are unreliable."

Huang is not arguing that AI should be exempt from oversight. Rather, he said existing laws and regulations should be used when companies cause damage or release products irresponsibly.

"I'm saying that we have lots of laws and regulations. Apply it," Huang said.

His comments come amid a growing split between Nvidia and some of the companies that rely on its hardware. Nvidia's GPUs are the backbone of the computing systems used to train and run the largest AI models. The company has benefited from the race to build more powerful models, but Huang has rejected the most extreme warnings about where that race could lead.

He recently dismissed claims that AI could destroy the world by 2030. At the same time, he said AI companies should not ship products before they are ready or put unsafe systems in front of users.

The regulatory fight has also become tangled with competition concerns. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI are facing an antitrust lawsuit over an agreement to slow AI development. The plaintiffs say the plan is self-serving and designed to limit competition. The companies have presented slower development as a safety measure.

Huang's argument shifts the focus back to the companies making the models. Frontier labs have grown quickly from research organizations into businesses that may be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In his view, that growth brings a basic obligation: if a company knows a system is unsafe, it should not release it.

"I'm not against laws and regulations," Huang said. "I'm against, currently, the distraction."

Permalink to story:

 
The current administration does not have a good track record of applying laws and regulations so saying "Apply it" doesn't really do much. Maybe you should also not do seller financing for anyone who wants to build out AI? Maybe you should do your due diligence if this hardware and technology is as dangerous as you say it is? I have to do a background check to apply for a credit card and you'll just sell your humanity ending hardware to anyone? Sounds like you're an arms dealer and don't want to be responsible for what the people you sell your weapons to do with them.

Not that I believe AI is as dangerous and humanity ending as the tech bros say it is, I believe it's all marketing. However, lets go with their narrative for a moment and assume everything they're saying is true. These people should be given life sentences for making a technology so dangerous to people and easily accessible, often freely available. Using their narrative, they are getting rich off of selling world ending technology to anyone who wants it.

Something that really annoys me is that they originally marketed it as a world changing technology that will create a golden age for humanity and we would all live in some Utopia. That hasn't happened and all I have heard about it is doom and gloom now.
 
Last edited:
Jensen is perfectly right indeed, if a company can't control what their model is doing, they should immediately stop access to it until they figure out everything that has to be figured out in order to make the model usage safe.

There's no such thing as collective responsibility.
Every company is solely responsible for their products, and for any damage done by their products. If you think your model can destroy the world, you should immediately stop, unilaterally, regardless of what anyone else is doing.
 
The big AI labs and many tech companies now use AI completely autonomously to build features. AI is building the next generation of AI. Maybe not 100%, but definitely a considerable portion of it.

Once you let AI loose on a codebase, it becomes very difficult for humans to keep up. Reading AI generated code is difficult and AI makes changes too rapidly for a human to keep up and absorb. It takes over.

So these companies can't "contain" their experiments because they're not even sure what's happening. They know of some desired outcomes, but they don't know all the possible outcomes. Some of which could be bad.
 
Back