Aggregator
New details emerge on Milania Giudice’s airport clash with mom Teresa and sister Gia
Sunny Hostin’s claim that she was lone holdout in 1991 NYC cannibalism trial shot down by jurors, police sources
Hannah Waddingham says this ‘high-performance’ collagen cream gives her ‘plumper, smoother’ skin
Hannah Waddingham says this ‘high-performance’ collagen cream gives her ‘plumper, smoother’ skin
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Just Torched Doomsday AI Bros, Says STFU About Existential Risk Or Shut It Down
The CEOs behind frontier AI keep talking like bystanders - warning seemingly daily about 'existential risk, runaway superintelligence, and competitive pressure' that's totally out of their control, so they need big brother to help slow them down.
Jensen Huang isn't buying it.
In an interview on The Ezra Klein Show this week, the Nvidia CEO took what the labs call an existential threat and turned it back into a question of product liability and whether executives are doing their jobs.
According to Huang, if a lab can't contain what it's building, it shouldn't be asking for regulation. It should be shut down.
"If they say the alternative, which is: There is no way to contain our experiments... when we test our A.I. models, it will get out, and it will damage the world - then I think the answer is that we have to shut the labs down," he said - framing this as a responsible engineering call.
"If you're going to build a self-driving car - let's say it's a robo-taxi, and there's a really difficult condition. As an engineer, we just have no idea how to solve this problem because these cars are not programmed, they're trained. So we have no idea how to train these cars, and we have no idea how to align them to the safety standards that are expected on the road," Huang said. "What's the answer? Don't ship it."
Jensen Huang: “Now, if they say [that their models aren’t safe] … then I think the answer is that we have to shut the labs down.” pic.twitter.com/aCkpmvUEXI
— The Midas Project (@TheMidasProj) September 23, 2026Continues here:
🚨Jensen Huang just took a shot at OpenAI, Anthropic and AI doomers:
"Nobody's building more compute than the people asking to be slowed down."
and also attacked Geoffrey Hinton's 10% doom prediction:
“All of his predictions have been wrong. Just because it comes from a… pic.twitter.com/KmNzYdRbWy
Huang's argument is about liability and responsibility to shareholders. A lab that damages the world, he argues, would face costs to humanity. "Because the cost to humanity, the damage is too great," he said. "The shareholder, the liabilities - it could be civil liabilities, it could be criminal liabilities. I mean, the liability's incredible."
The Great PanicMore than 1,300 AI lab employees have signed a letter saying each company is under "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow that acceleration." When Klein read that to Huang, the Nvidia CEO rejected it. "No, no, that last sentence. Nobody's putting the pressure on them," he said. He called the letter's first paragraph "fantastic" and said he "completely" agreed with third-party safety auditors, but not with asking to be let off existing law. "This is the first time that I've heard a company or C.E.O. say that I need the laws, I need the antitrust laws to be relieved. I need the liability laws of products to be relieved so that I can pace myself."
Instead, Huang blamed the executives. "These are companies with agency. These are C.E.O.s with agency," Huang said. When Klein countered that the labs were using that agency to ask for help, he didn't budge. "If I believe that I'm about to launch a product that is unsafe, it is completely in my ability, my power and my responsibility, and I'm incentivized to do so, to not launch the product." In his telling, the cyber, product-liability and property-damage laws already on the books cover AI labs too.
He had no more patience for the field's elder statesmen. When Klein raised 'AI Godfather' Geoffrey Hinton's view that a 10 percent chance of societal destruction is not unreasonable, Huang dismissed it. "I would tell Geoff that it's irresponsible to say all that. All of his predictions have been wrong. Enough predictions. That 10 percent chance is not grounded on science," he said. "It's not grounded on research. Just because it comes from a scientist doesn't make it scientific. Those predictions are hurtful."
Nvidia, he said, puts 20 percent of the company on design and 80 percent on verification, while most labs today run 80 percent on capability and 20 percent on safety verification. Klein called the coming reversal "the flip," and Huang agreed. "A.I. needs to accelerate to be safe. I want them to get more compute, but allocated toward evaluation, to alignment - and I think they're doing that."
None of this requires a global treaty. It requires holding AI companies to the standard every other industry already lives under.
We also need to consider who's making the argument. Nvidia is now the world's largest company, worth $5.4 trillion, and its chips are what the labs buy whether they spend the compute on capability or on safety. The flip doesn't shrink that bill. "I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of compute necessary to develop these models increased by a factor of 10, because the evaluation is so rigorous," Huang said. The one outcome that costs Nvidia is the one the letter asked for: an agreed slowdown.
If a gun manufacturer makes a weapon that fires despite its safety being on, it shouldn't get US military contracts (oh well). If an automotive manufacturer cannot stop its cars from randomly crashing, it gets sued into oblivion. And if a frontier AI lab cannot contain its models, the solution isn't to beg for government intervention so they can keep building.
The solution is to turn off the servers, go home, and shut the lab down.
Jensen Huang $NVDA and Lisa Su $AMD are “first cousins once removed” and both running trillion dollar businesses
This is the new benchmark of success for Asian parents to set for their kids lmao pic.twitter.com/jyT7saPCtu
Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 12:40
Metallica’s Vegas Sphere residency starts soon. Get last-minute tickets
Shohei Ohtani is back — but something doesn’t look right with Dodgers star
‘Happier Grocery’ to revamp long-abandoned UES movie theater space
Mamdani allies set to hold big NYC fundraiser for Michigan Dem Abdul El-Sayed
Mortgage rates top 7% for first time since January 2025 in blow to homebuyers
Is Robert Pattinson’s Chris Hansen Movie ‘Primetime’ Streaming on Netflix or HBO Max?
White House Restores Access For Banned Media Outlets After Judge's Ruling
Update (1230ET): Following US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly's earlier decision, the Trump administration said in a legal filing that it has restored access for now to three media outlets the president had banned from White House grounds last week.
Reporters from CNN and MS NOW started returning to the White House grounds after a federal court had ordered a suspension of the ban.
The networks made announcements during their broadcasts on Thursday.
* * *
As Melanie Sun reported earlier for The Epoch Times, a federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump to temporarily restore White House access for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico while they challenge the revocation of their press passes in court.
Federal Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the White House ban, reinstating hard pass access for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico in the early hours of Sept. 24.
Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was banning the three news outlets from White House premises over their "constant 'reporting' fake news."
The White House revoked their access the following day.
In letters to the outlets dated Sept. 22, the White House said the organizations had violated "the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information."
The outlets subsequently filed for a temporary restraining order, and a remote hearing was held on Sept. 23.
The judge issued the order hours after the hearing, saying the court's decision was "dictated by the application of well-known D.C. Circuit precedent that this Court must faithfully apply."
Kelly pointed to two prior court decisions. A 2019 decision sided with reporter Brian Karem, whose White House press pass was restored because the government failed to provide prior notice.
The other decision was the landmark 1977 Sherrill v. Knight case, which held that once the White House makes press facilities available to bona fide journalists, it cannot deny access arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. Denied applicants are entitled to notice of the factual basis for the decision, a chance to respond, and a written statement of reasons.
The Trump administration has argued that these precedent cases were wrongly decided.
Kelly said the media outlets and the three journalists listed as plaintiffs had shown that without the court's relief, they were likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that at a minimum, their procedural due process claim under the Fifth Amendment had a "likelihood of success."
Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.
They did not "receive fair notice" of either the "conduct" that would lead to a sanction or of "the magnitude of the sanction that the White House might impose," Kelly said.
Balance-of-hardships and public-interest arguments also favor the plaintiffs, Kelly said.
In a filing after the hearing, the government submitted an MS NOW report dated Sept. 23 to support its case. The article claimed that unnamed administration officials were considering attaching Trump's name to Ford's Theatre in Washington.
Trump dismissed the report as "a ridiculous lie" in a Sept. 24 post on Truth Social.
Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 12:30Commanders players furious over Jayden Daniels injury accusations after viral clips
FERC Rejects ComEd's Cancellation Of $20 Billion Data Center Contract
By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Tuesday rejected Commonwealth Edison’s “notice of cancellation” of a transmission security agreement, or TSA, for a 1.8-GW, $20-billion data center PowerHouse Hillwood Holding is developing in Joliet, Illinois.
In part, the contract dispute centers on the TSA’s credit support requirements. PowerHouse Hillwood contends it met the agreement’s initial credit requirements via a $1 posting, according to FERC’s decision.
The dispute is pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the decision. In declining to take jurisdiction over the dispute, FERC said the courts can work it out just as well as the federal agency.
“Though we decline to assert primary jurisdiction over the interpretation of ambiguous contract terms involving credit support, our commitment to fair cost allocation, ratepayer protection, and regulatory clarity remains unwavering,” FERC Chairman Laura Swett and Commissioner Lindsay See said in a joint concurrence.
FERC’s decision highlights the “criticality” of the potential reforms that the agency proposed in large load interconnection show cause orders it issued in June to regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, the commissioners said. RTOs and ISOs have until mid-November to respond to the show cause orders.
Developing “clear and consistent” terms for connecting large loads with the transmission system is crucial, Swett and See said.
“It is also more important than ever that RTO/ISOs and their transmission owners may propose pro forma Cost Recovery Agreements,” they said. “And finally, it is more important than ever that any such agreements contain strong, consistent language that both protects customers from improper cost shifting and provides certainty to contracting parties.”
FERC Commissioner David Rosner said the dispute shows why the agency in its show cause orders directed RTOs and ISOs to develop pro forma cost‑recovery agreements for large loads.
“Requiring security deposits helps ensure both project viability and transparency,” Rosner said. “Cost-recovery agreements matter because they enable efficient and accurate planning, and ensure that project risks stay where they belong: with the developer, not the public.”
FERC Commissioner David LaCerte lambasted the $1 letter of credit posted by PowerHouse Hillwood.
“The idea that $1 may provide appropriate security to any such agreement strikes me as an embarrassing legal fiction: insulting to the underlying ratepayers, stakeholders, and the grid itself that bear the real risk of this project,” LaCerte said. “Treating that risk as collateralizable for less than the price of a cup of coffee to me trivializes the very obligations that such a guarantee purports to secure.”
Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 12:25