Jensen Huang, the former boss of the giant Nvidia, is —or was?— probably the most influential person in the artificial intelligence industry.
But it was the lack of the most basic of human intelligences that brought the supposed hero down. Or revealed him. It was the lack of a sense of ethics, of responsibility, and even of common sense. Jensen Huang thought that he and AI had carte blanche. That AI —and he— could do anything. Including, as is known in his case, selling the image of a "family man" while carrying on extramarital affairs with someone who has been described as a Chinese spy.
But that is not the reason for his downfall. It was when it became known —thanks to the work of New York Times reporters— that he had also had a relationship with a subordinate of his, something that violates the rules and protocols of his own company. It then emerged that there would be yet another subordinate with whom he had allegedly done the same. It has even been said that within the company —where his family is also installed— his infidelities with women from the company, all of them his subordinates, were an open secret, but that everyone kept quiet.
Jensen Huang felt superpowerful.
This is how, before the scandal, he explained his vision of AI (and perhaps of himself): "Two hundred years ago we could make anything work with electricity. And then, forty years ago, thirty years ago, thanks to the internet, we could find anything. Today, or very soon...
AI Brief
Your highlights
Jensen Huang, former head of the giant Nvidia, is—or was?—probably the most influential person in the artificial intelligence industry. But it was the lack of the most basic of human intelligences that led the supposed hero to fall. Or to be revealed. It was the lack of a sense of ethics, of responsibility, and even of common sense. Jensen Huang thought that he and AI had carte blanche. That AI—and he—could do anything. Including, as is known in his case, selling the image of a "family man" while carrying on extramarital affairs with someone described as a Chinese spy. But that is not the reason for his fall. It was when it came to light—thanks to the work of New York Times reporters—that he had also had a relationship with a subordinate of his, something that violates his own company's rules and protocols. Then it was revealed that there would be yet another subordinate with whom he had allegedly done the same. It has even been said that within the company—where his family is also installed—his infidelities with women from the company, all of them his subordinates, were an open secret, but that everyone kept quiet. Jensen Huang felt superpowerful. This is how he explained, before the scandal, his vision of AI (and perhaps of himself): "Two hundred years ago we could make anything run with electricity. And then, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, thanks to the internet, we could find anything. Today, or very soon, we will be able to know everything and do anything," he told Ezra Klein. It has been said that Huang's personal life is not relevant, that criticizing—or dethroning—him for it is cynical puritanism. Others have trivialized the matter by calling him an affectionate or lovesick boss. Both justifications hide an obvious blindness: Huang broke the rules of his own company, in full view of those who did have to follow them, and knowing full well that his practices toward his subordinates were based on a flagrant asymmetry of power. Did these women have room to say no to his advances? What would happen if they said no? Huang was the king of Nvidia: he could determine their promotions, their salaries, their prospects not only within the company, but within the industry. The paradox is that this whole debate already took place, and very recently, after the Me Too movement. How many bosses saw no problem in that and considered that it was their great attractiveness that made those women not say no to them? It was a normalized situation, but one that was denormalized. Protocols were created, and in many cases, such relationships were outright banned within institutions. But the Jensen Huang case shows that cultural change is slow and the path is not linear. It shows the backlash, or the attempted backlash, that we are experiencing. The era of the manosphere, of the superegos of toxic masculinity, especially in Silicon Valley, has tried to subvert or question those advances. The big tech bros, as they are called, reign in a culture where there are no limits, neither internal nor external. They can and do whatever they want, in their lives and also with regard to their creations and technological products: with their immense lobbies, they avoid being regulated by states, which find themselves powerless before this transnational power. "The fall of Mr. Huang is not a technology story. It is a timeless story about male arrogance, about a man destined to fail due to a reckless excess of confidence. Some things never change," wrote Stephen Witt in the New York Times, author of The Thinking Machine, the biography of Jensen Huang. The problem is not only Huang—today dethroned—nor the people he has publicly humiliated—his lovers and, especially, his wife and children. The problem is the culture of Silicon Valley, which has enabled this type of behavior, behaviors that are imitated and deified. A culture that prides itself on "asking for forgiveness rather than permission"; a sexist and even misogynistic culture that puts success and unbridled competition as the only possible values, that despises the notion of care (of other humans, of the environment, even of children). A culture that makes a cult of the personality of those who appear as the "winners" of this race to dominate the new technological era. A culture and a way of operating based on contempt for rules and limits. The soap opera about Jensen Huang's private life must not distract from the substance. Huang is just one more of its fallen gods, but it is that culture that must be confronted. Because it is, ultimately, a culture that despises the human, the most properly human thing, which is to discern, doubt, and question one's own actions and their consequences on others. NEWSLETTEROpinionSaturday, AMIdeas in tension, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to reveal the issues that divide opinions and will set the agenda. By subscribing you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.