ChatGPT became the fastest-growing app when it was launched in 2022, spearheading generative artificial intelligence on its way to becoming the most valuable chatbot. However, the meteoric rise of AI has been shadowed by controversies, including a surge of public anxiety.

Fears about mass job losses, misinformation, and even civilizational collapse have dominated debates around AI’s future. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says that narrative has become excessive — and counterproductive.

Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Huang framed what he called the “doomer narrative” as one of the most damaging forces shaping the AI conversation today. For Huang, whose company supplies the chips that power much of the global AI ecosystem, the issue is no longer just about technical capability, but about how fear is influencing policy, investment, and public trust.

“One of my biggest takeaways from 2025 is the battle of the narratives,” Huang said, describing a widening divide between those who believe AI can broadly benefit society and those who argue it will erode economic stability or even threaten human survival.

He acknowledged that both optimism and caution have a place, but warned that repeated end-of-the-world framing has distorted the debate.

“I think we’ve done a lot of damage with very well-respected people who have painted a doomer narrative — end-of-the-world, science fiction narratives,” Huang said.

While conceding that science fiction has long shaped cultural imagination, he argued that leaning too heavily on those tropes is “not helpful to people, not helpful to the industry, not helpful to society, and not helpful to governments.”

A not-so-subtle rebuke of AI rivals

Although Huang did not name specific individuals, his comments echo earlier public clashes with leaders of other major AI firms — most notably Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In June last year, Amodei warned that AI could eliminate roughly half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, potentially pushing unemployment toward 20%. Huang responded at the time that he “pretty much disagree[d] with almost everything” Amodei had said.

That disagreement appears to go beyond economics and into philosophy and policy. On the podcast, Huang argued that AI companies should not be urging governments to impose heavier regulation, saying corporate advocacy for stricter rules often masks competitive self-interest.

“No company should be asking governments for more AI regulation,” Huang said. “Their intentions are clearly deeply conflicted. They’re CEOs, they’re companies, and they’re advocating for themselves.”

The subtext is clear: Huang sees some calls for regulation as an attempt by early AI leaders to lock in advantages, slow rivals, or shape rules in their own favor, rather than a neutral effort to protect society.

Regulation, geopolitics, and the China fault line

The rift between Nvidia and Anthropic has also played out in geopolitics. In May 2025, both companies took opposing stances on U.S. AI Diffusion Rules that restrict exports of advanced AI technologies to countries including China. Anthropic has supported tighter controls and stronger enforcement, highlighting cases of alleged chip smuggling.

Nvidia pushed back sharply, dismissing claims that its hardware had been trafficked into China through elaborate schemes. Huang has repeatedly argued that overly restrictive export controls risk weakening U.S. competitiveness without meaningfully slowing global AI development.

For Huang, this feeds into a broader concern: that fear-driven policymaking, fueled by apocalyptic rhetoric, could end up doing more harm than good.

One of Huang’s most pointed warnings was that relentless pessimism about AI could actually increase risks rather than reduce them. He argued that fear discourages investment in the very research and infrastructure needed to make AI systems safer, more reliable, and more socially useful.

“When 90% of the messaging is all around the end of the world and pessimism,” Huang said, “we’re scaring people from making the investments in AI that make it safer, more functional, more productive, and more useful to society.”

In Huang’s view, safety does not come from paralysis or blanket restriction, but from sustained development, testing, and deployment — all of which require capital, talent, and public confidence.

An industry divided from within

Huang is not alone among tech leaders expressing frustration with the tone of the AI debate. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has criticized what he sees as dismissive conversations that reduce AI output to “slop,” while Mustafa Suleyman, head of Microsoft’s AI division, described widespread public criticism of AI as “mind-blowing” late last year.

Yet the backlash is rooted in tangible outcomes, not just abstract fear. Estimates suggest that more than 20% of YouTube content now consists of low-quality or spam-like AI-generated material, while layoffs tied to automation and AI adoption continue to ripple through media, tech, and customer service roles. For many workers, skepticism reflects lived experience rather than science fiction.

Based on Huang’s remarks, the disagreement is no longer simply about how fast AI should advance, but about who gets to define its risks, who shapes regulation, and whether caution is a necessary brake or an overreaction that could blunt progress. The Nvidia CEO believes the danger lies in allowing fear to dominate the conversation. He argues that excessive pessimism risks slowing innovation, weakening competitiveness, and ironically making AI less safe in the long run.

Three Democratic senators have intensified pressure on Apple and Google to remove Elon Musk’s social media platform X and its associated AI app Grok from their app stores, citing the rampant generation of sexualized, nonconsensual images through XAI’s chatbot.

In an open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Senators Ron Wyden (Oregon), Ed Markey (Massachusetts), and Ben Ray Luján (New Mexico) urged the tech giants to enforce app store rules that prohibit apps enabling sexualized images of real people without consent. They argued that Grok has allowed users to flood X with thousands of sexualized images an hour, depicting women, and in some cases, children, including portrayals of abuse, humiliation, and even death.

Within hours of the letter, X adjusted the Grok reply bot’s functionality on the platform, restricting image generation to paying premium subscribers and narrowing the types of images that could be generated on X itself. However, the standalone Grok app and website still permit users to generate sexualized deepfakes, raising questions about the platform’s ability or willingness to fully address the problem.

Senator Wyden criticized the partial changes, calling them insufficient: “All X’s changes do is make some of its users pay for the privilege of producing horrific images on the X app, while Musk profits from the abuse of children,” he said.

Global Consequences and Rising Tensions

The backlash has not been confined to the U.S. Governments in Asia have begun to take matters into their own hands. Indonesia temporarily blocked Grok and X after the AI tool generated explicit content depicting real people, including minors, without consent. Malaysia also restricted access to X in response to similar concerns. Both governments cited violations of citizens’ privacy and the potential for harm as justification for the actions.

Despite the mounting criticism, Elon Musk has yet to propose a concrete solution to curb Grok’s abuse. Musk continues to frame regulatory pressure as a free speech issue. On X, he accused the U.K. government of seeking “any excuse for censorship” and of attempting to suppress free expression, echoing his long-standing opposition to content moderation. Musk and xAI have reiterated that producing illegal content will lead to expulsion from X, but much of the sexualized imagery at the center of the controversy falls into a legal gray area, leaving enforcement uneven and limited.

Debate Over Free Speech and Regulatory Authority

While the senators argue that Apple and Google are uniquely positioned to stop the distribution of apps that enable sexualized deepfakes, some observers contend that the demand amounts to overreach. Critics say compelling app stores to remove X and Grok could set a precedent that stifles free expression and expands governmental influence over digital platforms and AI innovation.

“All major AIs have documented instances of going off the rails; all major AI companies make their best efforts to combat this; none are perfect,” Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said.

He went further, accusing politicians of using app store gatekeepers to selectively target companies they oppose, calling it “basic crony capitalism.”

“I defend open platforms, free speech, and consistent application of the rule of law,” he said.

Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Challenges

Apple’s App Store guidelines prohibit apps that include “overtly sexual or pornographic material” or content likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm individuals. Google’s Play Store similarly bans apps promoting sexually predatory behavior or distributing nonconsensual sexual content. Both companies have previously removed apps that allowed AI-based “nudifying” of images.

However, Grok and X remain highly ranked on both platforms, with Grok placed in the top 10 apps on Friday, illustrating the difficulty of enforcing policy consistently across powerful AI tools.

Many have noted that the distributed nature of AI and generative tools complicates enforcement. Even if Apple or Google delists Grok, the app can still be accessed through web portals or sideloaded, and international users may continue to generate abusive content. Meanwhile, Musk’s framing of moderation as censorship allows him to rally supporters who oppose any perceived limitation on content generation, further polarizing the discussion.

Timeline: Grok/X Controversy and Global Backlash

December 2025 – Musk Unveils Grok’s AI Image Manipulation

• Elon Musk, owner of X and xAI, introduces a version of the Grok AI chatbot capable of manipulating images of real people.
• The AI tool can generate sexualized content, including deepfakes of women and minors.
• Musk frames moderation as censorship and opposes heavy content restrictions, emphasizing free speech.

Early January 2026 – Rampant Deepfake Generation on X

• X users exploit Grok to generate thousands of sexualized images per hour, largely depicting women but also including minors.
• Many images involve nonconsensual scenarios, sexual abuse, humiliation, or death.
• The platform’s moderation struggles to contain the content, and harmful imagery spreads widely.

January 9, 2026 – X Adjusts Grok Functionality

• X limits Grok’s image generation to paying premium subscribers.
• Certain image categories are restricted on X itself, but the Grok tab on X, the standalone app, and website continue to allow sexualized deepfakes.
• Musk reiterates that illegal content will result in expulsion from X, but much of the content does not legally qualify as illegal.

January 10–12, 2026 – Southeast Asia Governments Take Action

• Indonesia: Temporarily blocks X and Grok following reports of sexualized AI-generated imagery depicting real people, including minors.
• Malaysia: Restricts access to X, citing privacy and citizen protection concerns.
• Governments emphasize that AI-fueled sexualized imagery violates human rights and digital safety.