Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, has dismissed fears that artificial intelligence could lead to human extinction, describing such warnings as “doomsday narratives” that are not supported by science.
In an interview with CBS News aired in September 2026, the head of the world’s most valuable company stated there is a “0% chance” that AI will cause the end of the world by 2030. His comments come amid a widening philosophical divide in Silicon Valley between “accelerationists” who want to fast-track development and those calling for stringent safety regulations.
The debate was recently intensified by the high-profile resignation of Jacob Coxon, a researcher at the AI firm Anthropic, in early September 2026. Mr Coxon claimed that many developers within the industry privately believe there is a significant risk that AI could kill humanity by the end of the decade.
Responding to these concerns, Mr Huang suggested that industry leaders who advocate for a slower pace of development may have “ulterior reasons,” such as political motives or a desire for attention. He argued that while products should never be shipped if they are “unsafe,” the idea of a looming existential threat is unfounded.
As reported by Anadolu Ajansı, the controversy highlights a “civil war” over AI safety that pits Mr Huang against other prominent tech figures, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, who have previously signed statements comparing the risks of AI to those of pandemics or nuclear war.
Nvidia’s market valuation reached $5.3 trillion (£3.98 trillion) in September 2026, cementing Mr Huang’s position as one of the most influential figures in the global technology sector. His company produces the specialist chips that provide the vast computing power required to train and run modern AI systems.
Despite his rejection of extinction risks, Mr Huang maintained that the industry must remain responsible, though he did not specify how his “0% risk” assessment was calculated beyond stating it was not “grounded in science.” Critics have pointed out a potential contradiction in his argument, suggesting that if products must be kept back until they are “safe,” the risk of harm cannot be entirely non-existent.