Jensen Huang to college grads: "Run. Don't walk" toward AI

https://www.axios.com/2026/05/...

Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told graduates at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh yesterday that demand for AI infrastructure is creating a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to reindustrialize America and restore the nation's capacity to build."

Why it matters: With many college grads fearing AI could obliterate their career dreams, Huang pointed to boundless opportunity as a "new industry is being born. A new era of science and discovery is beginning ... I cannot imagine a more exciting time to begin your life's work."

Nvidia, which makes AI chips, is the world's most valuable company. Huang told 5,800 recipients of undergraduate and graduate degrees that the AI buildout will require plumbers, electricians, ironworkers, and builders for chip factories, data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities.

"No generation has entered the world with more powerful tools â" or greater opportunities â" than you," he said. "We are all standing at the same starting line. This is your moment to help shape what comes next. So run. Don't walk."

"Every major technological revolution in history created fear alongside opportunity," Huang added. "When society engages technology openly, responsibly, and optimistically, we expand human potential far more than we diminish it."

Full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

...like "Tell me about Tiananmen Square" or "Tell me about Xinjiang".

Is this what you want for the future?

My thoughts back when R1 came out:

https://www.afcea.org/signal-m...

"He's like Godzilla the Hun."

To clarify, OS X was descended from NeXTSTEP, which was built on Mach and BSD.

"A human generally can't tell AI generated text from human generated text"

Go read some of the grad student Facebook groups. Folks who regularly see AI text and humon-authored text can tell those apart fairly reliably. TFS talks about how humans agreed with the AI detector about AI-assisted texts being low quality.

When I did editor training, a part of that was to read and edit for *flow*, which gen AI does not currently understand.

> I will admit that I'm getting a bit of an AI-vibe from your post.

Thank you for the personal attack. Are you wishing to end this conversation?

For this workflow, it just needs to be accurate enough to flag a manuscript or reviewer comments for human review. If the authors disclosed and it was AI assisted, great. If not, question what else the authors or reviews might be dishonest about.

The detection AI concurs reasonably with human judgement: "The study also found that submissions in 2025 with abstracts flagged by Pangram were twice as likely to be rejected by journal editors before peer review as were those not flagged by the tool. The desk-rejection rate was higher for manuscripts flagged for AI-generated text in the methods section."

A humon typist or graduate student typing, incorporating edits, and otherwise revising a manuscript learns and improves both themselves and the manuscript by discerning the meanings that were or were not intended with each iteration of writing one paper or across a series of papers, even when using winword's grammar and spelling checkers, Grammarly and similar technical tools. There are AIs that can learn from a user's revisions. Using those would be more helpful than asking AI to generate text and then revising.

The summary also notes that AI detection was higher among papers from countries where English is not a native language. In the previous process where a manuscript by non-English native authors would be sent out to an English language editor as part of the drafting process, the editor would provide helpful questions about meaning, ambiguities, consistency of style, logical flow, etc. AI tools are starting to do that.

For reviews, a human reviewer, native language user or not, will react to unusual spelling and grammar or errors of meaning, and methods/claims that are not plausibly within the discipline, whereas many AIs will parse over all that to infer meaning statistically. AI reviews may also draw connections among concepts that may exist across literatures but do not exist in practice, and/or hallucinate suggested citations about *God cremating the Earth in seven days*, etc.

Corals are also not immune to evolution. The heat tolerant mutants will go on just fine.

Despite very credible allegations, Biden was never convicted of raping raping Tara Reade. And his daughter's recollections of him inappropriately showering with her outlasted any statute of limitations. But I see where you're going, there. The rest is a good fit, right down to the weaponized government, for sure. The plot twist is that the real kingpins are behind the scenes, using him as a puppet. It's good villain story line material fresh from real life.

One small step towards an iPad being required to restore an iPhone.

What "Decades old C" implementation of AV1 decoding?

AV1 was released in March 2018.

...an article worth considering from Princeton University's Zeynep Tufekci:

We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Since scientists began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology â" research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world â" no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe, and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission â" it certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratoryâ(TM)s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

Full article

Photographers are already using their software of choice to work with raw formats. Often, that software takes advantage of specific hardware and software features of the $$,$$$ to $$$,$$$ cameras and associated equipment that created the raw files. Staying within the family for software to work with digital negatives and images is not a big jump when someone has already invested in a single platform of camera bodies and lenses, and most photography software that is worth using in the long run provides timely enough support for new camera models. When professional photographers' time is worth $$$ to $,$$$ per hour, the fact that the software or standard is open source might not matter to their teams' workflows or bottom lines.

I've installed and supported GIMP for dozens of groups in the past, but I've stopped doing that because kids who learn that software gain significantly less advantage for employment and further education compared to learning more popular desktop and cloud based image editors.

The "current crisis" is manufactured and amplified externally. Nobody is doxxing Tesla owners with maps using Molotov cocktails as map cursors or burning lots full of vehicles in for service in some way that is a function of whether Musk is personally present on the factory floor vs doing something else he thinks is vital to our economic survival. All of it is ginned up hate based on the politics surrounding the pruning of vast left slush funds and debt-funded waste that has to go away. That's an entire industry with vested interests, and acting against it certainly brings out the coordinated hate, attacks on stock value, media smearing, and of course thousands of people who now say he's a nazi though they can't actually articulate why they think that.

No, him being "on the factory floor" or off it doesn't precipitate some "current crisis," except in the sense that entrenched interests currently having their oxen gored by drying up things like the NGO money laundering industry are doing their best to try to wreck the company to make a point.

So the people who made it should have been earning minimum wage, is that your point? Spread that dollar amount across five and half yeads and even modest team of people and their overhead, and they're making middle five figures after taxes. Is that a lot, to you?

It took five and a half years to make it. So, in perhaps over-simplified terms, that's ~$670k year working on it. Let's say you had six people working on the project, and had NO overhead at all beyond their personal income while making it. That's roughly $100k per person before they paid taxes, which is either pretty good or not very good at all, depending on where you live and how. But one supposes they also had some overhead. This wasn't done on their kids' laptops at night. There was music to compose, audio to record and design, and a lot more.

So, yeah. "Just" 3.7M is a fair characterization.