Tech bros pulling percentages out of their asses every other day...
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
69 points (78.5% liked)
Technology
88203 readers
3811 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There is also 0% chance that AI contributes to society.
I'm not worried about AI launching nukes and destroying the world. I'm worried about idiot bosses trying to replace all human employees with AI and firing everyone. Of course it won't work but what does that matter, they'll destroyed the economy by the time they work that out.
Can we please stop posting AI/nVidia publicity?
"We currently forecast 2034"
Stupid Nvidia boss. I am cooler. I say that there is almost 0% chance that the Sun will explode during the next 4 years.
Just go for absolute 0%. If you're wrong, you won't be wrong for very long.
Eight minutes can seem very long though.
You won't even know about those eight minutes.
I once lasted 8 minutes. 10/10 would recommend.
More confirmation that the AI Death Threats is designed to do two things:
- Encourage regulations that, in effect, hand control of future development to big players.
- Slows development just as development is becoming more expensive and returning fewer performance gains at prices nobody wants to pay (the S curve reminding us that, yes, it exists).
Either of those situations would slow the sales of chips, so of course Jensen is going to argue against it.
The business press does not pursue the truth, it is an easily manipulable forum to raise stock prices.
My view is regulatory capture is as an existential requirement for them. Otherwise at some point we'll be running open models on our phones and won't need them.
Not for nvidia though, always going to need chips
Right. Everyone has been selling AI-enabled phones and computers for a few years now... Now that AI companies are actually charging real money for tokens, people are automatically routing their questions to their local AI for the cost of electricity, and saving their queries to OpenAI, etc., for the harder questions.
The valuations are absolutely bonkers. OpenAI is just cloud computing which every single major customer they have asking themselves every quarter if they should just go in-house.
Man who sells guns say guns don't kill.
Well, he's saying "by 2030". That's an important qualifier.
Guns don't kill*
*unless you're alive to begin with
in other news, man whos livelihood depends on selling beer says beer is healthy
So either they don't need that long, or they have planned robot takeover for January '31.
If the AI race pauses, Nvidia can't sell their GPUs anymore. At least not this expensively, and then they can't afford to prop AI up anymore.
I'd say it's more than zero and less than 100%.
And someone who has an economic stake in it is not someone I'll listen to.
This feels like an anchoring negotiation tactic. Start the discussion at “destroy the world”, then later settle on “make the world significantly shittier for average people” and everyone’s happy.
Whelp at least it’s not AI apocalypse!
2031 it is!
he will be buying his jacket but its made of gold.
Someone says something controversial or scary to drum up media hype to keep the hype train moving. Other CEO's jump on board (to try to spin the news to make it seem like they're being responsible by not developing their product for "safety reasons" when in fact it's because they can't), Lead CEO then comes out and makes a statement trying to spin it the other way also to keep the hype train going and convince us they have it under control.
I can't wait for the crash and burn.
Just humans
Nvidia (We're nothing like Enron) boss says there is ‘0% chance’ AI destroys the world by 2030
Easy to make such claims when there's not gonna be anyone left to call him out if he's wrong.
It's not so much the AGI problem (at least, we need to see quantum computing in full swing before considering that) but the hooking up of AI to megathreat nukes etc.
So that means 100%. We are screwed.
He's just saying the world and not making any mention about the saving of the professional world or the economic world where the bottom 90% lives.
Shovel seller be trying to sell more
It will probably be 2038 with Oracle leading the charge of expecting AI to solve the 2038 problem after everyone collectively waits until the last minute because they don't want to pay for IT, while new software without foresight continues to prefer MySQL timestamp over datetime because you can get it to be UTC aware with the table definition for audit fields (e.g. on update clause) instead of having to create a separate trigger to explicitly set it to UTC.
after everyone collectively waits until the last minute because they don't want to pay for IT
We handled the Y2K problem. Yeah, a few minor bugs slipped through, but I remember identical concerns in the 1990s about how businesses would wait until the last minute and then there wouldn't be enough people with the relevant skillset to get it fixed in a short window.
I'm pretty confident that we'll also handle the Y2038 problem.
Everyone I talked to 20 years ago about it thought it would already be solved by now...
Phew! Thank God! I was really worry for a momente there 😄
.
.
...we're screwed.
I am not terribly worried about 2026 ChatGPT posing an existential threat to humanity---though some people, like Yudkowsky, are. Yudkowsky's scenerio is via someone inadvertently managing to produce an advanced AI via poorly-controlled-and-understood efforts to develop one using less-sophisticated, current AIs, and that advanced AI being the problem.
But I don't think that most people who are concerned about existential risk are worried mostly about the next three-and-a-quarter years, which is what Huang is addressing, but rather what happens with more-advanced AIs that we intentionally develop. It seems very unlikely that we will not develop these, absent some sort of global, actively-enforced agreement not to do so. And...I'm not sure that we even have the ability to realistically enforce such an agreement, even if we decided that we wanted to do so. As I've commented before, that's effectively an arms control treaty, and the history of those has been spotty.
The reason that one wants to be figuring out safety now, rather than waiting for someone to go develop the thing and then start thinking about safety, is that the major advantage we have now is time. One does not want to squander that.