Jensen Huang is mounting one of the strongest pushbacks yet against the increasingly alarmist rhetoric surrounding artificial intelligence, warning that exaggerated claims from some technology leaders risk creating unnecessary panic around a technology that is rapidly becoming central to the global economy.

Speaking during the “Memos to the President” podcast on Thursday, the Nvidia chief criticized what he portrayed as speculative forecasts about mass unemployment and existential catastrophe, arguing that parts of Silicon Valley have drifted into a culture of hyperbole as competition in artificial intelligence intensifies.

“These kinds of comments are not helpful,” Huang said, referring to predictions that AI could wipe out huge segments of white-collar employment. “They’re made by people who are like me CEOs. Somehow, because they became CEOs, you adopt a God complex and, before you know it, you know everything.”

Although Huang did not directly name individuals, the remarks were widely viewed as a response to warnings by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who has argued that advanced AI systems could eliminate as much as half of entry-level office jobs in coming years.

The exchange highlights a widening philosophical divide inside the AI industry itself. One camp, led by executives and researchers at firms such as Anthropic and several AI safety organizations, argues that increasingly powerful models could destabilize labor markets, cyber defenses and even geopolitical systems if left unchecked. Another camp, represented more openly by Huang, believes the dangers are being overstated in ways that obscure the economic and scientific opportunities AI could unlock.

Huang also dismissed warnings that artificial intelligence could eventually wipe out humanity, calling such predictions detached from technical realities.

“Saying nonsensical things, which are not going to happen, that this is an existential threat to humanity, there’s 20% chance that it’s existential. That’s ridiculous,” Huang said.

The comment appeared to reference remarks by Elon Musk, who claimed there was a “20% chance of annihilation” from AI during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

The increasingly public disagreement among AI leaders comes at a critical moment for the industry. Generative AI has moved from an experimental technology to the center of corporate strategy, national security planning, and capital markets. Governments are racing to secure computing infrastructure, while companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars building data centers and acquiring AI chips.

Nvidia, whose graphics processing units have become the foundational hardware powering most advanced AI systems worldwide, has been leading that expansion. The company’s explosive rise has turned Huang into one of the most influential voices in the sector, particularly as Nvidia’s chips underpin models developed by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Microsoft.

That position gives Huang a unique commercial incentive to stabilize the narrative around AI. Investor enthusiasm for artificial intelligence has driven one of the largest spending cycles in technology history, with hyperscalers expected to collectively invest more than $700 billion this year into AI infrastructure, cloud expansion, and advanced semiconductor systems.

Yet concerns about overinvestment and unrealistic expectations have also started surfacing across financial markets. Questions about monetization, energy consumption, labor disruption, and regulatory scrutiny are becoming more prominent as companies struggle to translate AI excitement into consistent commercial returns.

Huang’s comments indicate growing frustration among some executives who fear that fear-driven narratives could eventually provoke aggressive regulation or public backlash against AI deployment.

His remarks also arrive as labor anxiety intensifies globally. Since late 2025, increasingly sophisticated AI coding agents and enterprise assistants have fueled concerns that professional work once considered insulated from automation may no longer be safe. AI systems can now generate software code, summarize legal documents, conduct research, analyze financial data, and automate administrative workflows at speeds previously impossible.

Executives at several AI firms have openly acknowledged that the technology could shrink portions of the workforce. At the same time, companies across banking, consulting, media, and software have accelerated internal AI adoption to cut costs and boost productivity.

But Huang believes the conversation has become too narrowly focused on replacement rather than augmentation.

For years, he has maintained that AI will reshape jobs rather than simply erase them, comparing the current transition to earlier computing revolutions that automated repetitive tasks while creating entirely new industries. Nvidia executives frequently describe AI as a “copilot” technology capable of expanding human productivity rather than eliminating human participation altogether.

That distinction is increasingly important as governments attempt to craft policy responses. Regulators in the United States, Europe, and Asia are debating how to manage AI’s impact on employment, intellectual property, misinformation, and cybersecurity without stifling innovation or competitiveness.

The debate has become particularly intense in cybersecurity and defense circles. Advanced AI models are now capable of identifying vulnerabilities, generating code, and accelerating cyber operations, raising fears among security officials that offensive capabilities may evolve faster than defensive systems.

Also, AI companies themselves are becoming more divided over how aggressively to deploy the technology. Anthropic has generally positioned itself as more cautious on frontier AI risks, emphasizing constitutional AI safeguards and warning about uncontrolled scaling. OpenAI has also repeatedly warned about potential societal disruptions, even as it aggressively commercializes its models.

Huang’s stance places Nvidia more firmly in the pro-expansion camp at a time when governments and corporations are deciding which companies will dominate the next era of computing infrastructure.

His intervention also comes as some of the more catastrophic predictions about AI-driven economic collapse are beginning to face scrutiny. Fears earlier this year that generative AI would devastate the software-as-a-service sector have weakened following stronger-than-expected earnings from enterprise software companies, including Atlassian, Twilio, and Five9.

Those results have reinforced a growing view among investors that AI may initially enhance existing software ecosystems rather than abruptly replacing them.

Even so, economists warn that the full labor impact of AI may not become visible for years. Unlike previous automation cycles focused on factory work, generative AI is targeting cognitive and professional tasks, raising the possibility of disruption across sectors once viewed as protected from technological displacement.

Huang’s remarks ultimately underscore how uncertain the industry remains about AI’s long-term trajectory. While technology leaders publicly compete to build more powerful models, they are increasingly engaged in another battle: shaping public perception of what those systems will ultimately mean for society, labor markets, and economic power.

OPEC+ is preparing another oil production increase even as the Iran war continues to choke off exports from the Persian Gulf.

Sources familiar with the group’s internal discussions told Reuters that seven core OPEC+ producers have agreed in principle to raise June output targets by roughly 188,000 barrels per day. The decision, expected to be formalized during Sunday’s policy meeting, would mark the third consecutive monthly increase in quotas.

Yet the additional barrels are likely to remain largely theoretical for now. The continuing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, following the outbreak of war between the United States and Iran on February 28, has sharply constrained the ability of Gulf producers to move crude onto global markets. The disruption has affected exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, the very countries that previously held most of OPEC+’s spare production capacity.

As a result, analysts and traders say the cartel is attempting to project stability and long-term confidence even while actual shipments remain severely impaired.

The seven countries participating in Sunday’s production discussions are Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Oman. The meeting comes only days after the United Arab Emirates announced its exit from OPEC, a major geopolitical shock that further complicates the cartel’s long-term cohesion.

Although the UAE formally left the organization on May 1, the country had been one of the few members capable of meaningfully increasing production in recent years. Its departure weakens OPEC’s collective spare-capacity profile at a moment when energy markets are already under extraordinary strain.

The ongoing war has effectively split the global oil market into two competing realities. On paper, OPEC+ continues to signal that additional supply can be restored gradually to stabilize prices and reassure consuming nations. In practice, however, much of that supply remains stranded due to the security crisis surrounding Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime energy chokepoints. Roughly a fifth of global oil consumption normally passes through the Strait.

Oil executives and commodity traders say even if the waterway reopens in the near term, normalization will not happen quickly. Tankers displaced during the conflict must be repositioned, shipping insurance markets must stabilize, naval security risks must ease, and export backlogs must be worked through before flows return to normal levels.

Some analysts estimate that the process could take months. That lag is becoming increasingly important for financial markets, airlines, manufacturers, and central banks already bracing for the inflationary consequences of prolonged energy disruption.

Crude prices surged above $125 per barrel this week, reaching their highest levels in four years as concerns intensified over tightening supplies of diesel, jet fuel, and petrochemical feedstocks. Several analysts are now warning that global aviation markets could face meaningful fuel shortages within weeks if Gulf exports remain constrained.

The latest OPEC+ increase is slightly smaller than May’s output adjustment because it excludes the UAE’s share following its withdrawal from the group. Still, the symbolic value of the decision appears to matter almost as much as the barrels themselves.

By continuing with scheduled production hikes during wartime conditions, OPEC+ is attempting to present itself as functional, disciplined, and prepared to restore supply once trade routes reopen. The move also helps counter fears that the organization is losing control of the market following the UAE’s departure and escalating geopolitical fragmentation in the Middle East.

Internally, however, the cartel faces mounting pressure. Several producers are already struggling with falling exports and damaged infrastructure. Russia, another key member of the alliance, has reduced output after repeated Ukrainian drone attacks targeted parts of its energy network. Iran’s own oil exports have also come under renewed pressure following a U.S. blockade imposed in April.

According to OPEC’s most recent monthly report, combined output from the broader alliance averaged 35.06 million barrels per day in March, down sharply from February levels. Saudi Arabia and Iraq accounted for some of the largest declines as Gulf export routes became increasingly restricted.

The current crisis is also reshaping the calculations of major consuming economies. Countries in Europe and Asia are accelerating efforts to secure alternative crude supplies from the United States, West Africa, Brazil, and Guyana. Governments are also weighing additional strategic petroleum reserve releases to offset potential shortages if the conflict drags deeper into the summer.

At the same time, the war is reviving long-standing fears about the global economy’s dependence on Middle Eastern energy infrastructure. For years, energy analysts warned that prolonged instability around Hormuz represented one of the largest systemic risks to world markets. The current conflict is now testing that vulnerability in real time.

The production increase expected from OPEC+, therefore, serves less as an immediate supply solution and more as a signal of intent. The cartel is effectively telling markets that additional crude exists and can eventually return. But until shipping lanes reopen and regional security stabilizes, much of the world’s oil capacity will remain trapped behind a geopolitical blockade that no quota adjustment alone can solve.