Jensen Huang, the NVIDIA CEO and wearer of the most midlife crisis looking leather jackets in the world, was on Ezra Klein’s podcast. Now I don’t really want you do go through all of what was being said in…

170 points•latexr•6 days ago•89 comments•

89 comments

tangled5 days ago
As others have said: this was not a good faith discussion. Huang was using the interview as an opportunity to “talk his book”, and Klein was using it to sell his own Serious Interviewer brand. Both were getting something out of this.

Given this arrangement, Klein had a limited ability to push back (well, he could, but that would mean a bunch of future interviews wouldn’t happen). Instead, he left it up to the viewer to make their own inferences. And some people are going to see Klein’s lack of push-back as a legitimization of Huang’s views.

After watching the first twenty minutes or so (I couldn’t watch any more), I had a much lower opinion of Klein as an interviewer who is willing to ask the tough questions no matter who he’s talking to.

RGS18116 days ago
This post resonates with me but for reasons not given in it. It calls to mind Immanuel Kant's famous essay "What is Enlightenment?" Where he says this:

> Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!”--that is the motto of enlightenment.

beepbooptheory6 days ago
If this is not just about the wikipedia quote here, what do you mean? Because its rather silly trying to apply it such that all these CEO guys in these instances are Kant's scholars, making "public use" of their reason. Rather than, you know, the pastors and unenlightened monarchs of the essay using their reason privately!

> He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher’s use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this useis always only domestic...

https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlighte...

RGS18115 days ago
The public/private distinction Kant introduces is interesting, but it's not what I'm getting at here.

To draw a broad strokes historical parallel you could say this: in pre-Enlightenment Europe, responsibility for reasoning was signed away to various authorities (the church, the prince, etc.), "liberating" common people from the need to reason or ask questions or make self-directed use of their intellectual faculties. The vision of enlightenment Kant puts forward gives us an alternative ideal: maturity and freedom come from the self-directed use of one's intellectual faculties, the choice to take on responsibility for one's beliefs oneself, even if the freedom to think and discuss is constrained within the confines of public law. The ideal is inquiry, questioning, the desire to understand things from first principles and the refusal to accept the dictates of external authorities as given without being able to participate in the reasoning that justifies their claims.

If Huang, Altman, etc., are offering us all a future in which nobody is indepdendent minded enough to be able to perform arithmetic or even know their own address, what they're offering is "liberation" backwards into the world of intellectual immaturity, into a kind of serfdom disguised as leisure or carelessness. Maybe some people want that, and maybe they can even argue that it's good, but it's worth being clear about the fact that "liberation" from the need or desire to know or reason about the basic facts of one's life is not empowering, and does not yield greater personal independence or maturity. It is, in Kant's terms, anti-Enlightenment.

jpitz6 days ago
Counterpoint: the person who understands how do to a task without the tool often winds up being the more capable user of the tool.
jmathai6 days ago
The risk of not remembering how to do long division was limited because we could point to more complex problems that we would be solving instead. That was the trade off.

With skills and agents, that's a lot more fuzzy. Because for every higher complexity problem the obvious answer is that agents would be able to do that also.

Some folks (with significant agency) embrace that future with open arms while others (99.9% of humans) are tepid.

crancher6 days ago
We are each a nest of functional dependencies. Perhaps discernment is the ability to know which to introspect. Some people absolutely need to know where the water comes from, some do not.
jampa6 days ago
I think the reality is even simpler: Huang, Altman and Amodei are in the end of the day head salespeople of their respective company… and they use these social platforms to sell their products.

Their job is to convince people that AI has a large upside while minimizing any downside, they dont need to believe in those themselves.

NKosmatos6 days ago
So many truths in this post… With regards to division and mathematics, I remembered this article/study I saw some time ago about a maths professor handing out “crooked” calculators to the whole class and then having them take an exam. Most of the kids took the results from the calculators as they were, without challenging them and hence failed the test. The minority had the knowledge and critical mind needed in order to understand that what their tool* was telling them was off.

* where tool replace with agent, map, AI

ninalanyon5 days ago
Professor? So this was at a university? What point was he trying to prove? And did those who failed the test go on to somehow magically develop the critical thinking skills that they were lacking?

Sounds like a cheap stunt if it wasn't immediately followed by both remedial teaching and a shake up of the teaching at the institutions that had so signally failed those students.

NKosmatos5 days ago
It could have been a story or something that I read in an article, but the point remains. We shouldn't blindly trust results/calculations if we don't have a feeling of the correctness or how the result is derived. I understand that this isn't valid for many cases where difficult and complex computations are performed, but for many real life scenarios and situations it's valid. As stated in the original article, the people holding the AI strings are somewhat disconnected from us real people and they lack this human and real life touch. I hope I've explained it correctly :-)

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories