Extended interview: Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang on fears about AI

Jensen, thank you for doing this today.

I’m happy to do it. Nice to see you.

It’s nice to see you, too. Thank you for your time.

My first question: We’ve heard from some of the top CEOs—Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Elon Musk—saying that we need to pace the development of AI. You’ve got whistleblowers saying that the end of humanity could be within 10 years. Do you agree with this?

1. AI Enters Production

First of all, AI technology is incredibly powerful. It could, of course, do incredible good, and it could be applied to terrible applications as well. So we have to make sure that when we’re developing this technology, we develop it safely.

The industry is transitioning from developing AI technology that is becoming capable. In the first part of this year, we went through a transition where AI became useful, and the demand for it is incredible. Token generation for these AI products is now profitable—actually, incredibly profitable. So many companies are adopting it.

OpenAI’s latest Astra is incredible. We’re using it all over the place. We use Claude Code. We use Cursor. We use xAI’s product. We use Cognition. The capability of the technology has now reached an extremely useful state.

These companies are transitioning from being labs trying to get the technology to work to now being product companies. Even calling them labs tells you something. They were in research for the first 10 or 15 years, and now, all of a sudden, in the last 6 months, practically the entire industry has shifted to high-production ramp mode. I think all of the reactions that are happening are part of that transition at their core.

Are they correct assessments of what could happen? Are we all going to be, in the words of some, gone in a decade?

No, that’s completely false. That kind of narrative is dramatic. It gets a lot of attention. Obviously, it’s gotten the attention of the press. At its core, I think they care deeply that the products are built safely.

They’re transitioning from a lab to engineering. They have to dedicate a lot more of their researchers and a lot more of their compute to safety. In the case of developing products, there’s the engine, there’s the design and capabilities part of it, and there’s the verification part of it.

In the beginning of any industry, most of the engineering goes toward making the product work. Then, as the product becomes mature and rolls out into society, most of the engineering is actually dedicated to verification, testing, evaluation, benchmarking, attesting to standards and making sure that the product they ship is reliable, functions as expected and delivers on the promise of the product.

It’s very sensible that right now, during this transition, they have to move a lot of their capabilities to AI safety. I think that’s really the crux of it. All the messaging around the drama of it is unnecessary. It is, quite frankly, too much drama and irresponsible. It is not grounded in facts. It’s not grounded in science.

So it’s wrong?

It’s wrong because it’s not grounded in science. Their concern is not wrong. I just want to make sure that, at the core of it, the concern is not wrong.

This is no different than the fact that I just landed from a plane. I’m really glad that the entire ecosystem and industry of air travel takes safety seriously, and that all the people are working around the clock. There are more people working on airline safety, aircraft safety and air-travel safety than there are working on making new types of aircraft. It makes sense, and we’re just going through the same thing.

You’ve said we don’t need any new laws. We don’t need any new regulations. But you just said here that you support safeguards in major industries. Why not support the equivalent of an FDA or an FAA for AI?

2. Apply Existing Laws

Before we come up with new laws and new regulations, let’s apply the current laws and the current regulations. There are all kinds of laws and regulations. We live in the land of laws, and that’s the reason we feel safe, secure and governed. We have all kinds of laws and regulations applied to each and every one of those applications, whether it’s food, air travel or anything else.

Specifically for AI.

Yeah. So what’s the missing part? Tell me the missing part.

I’m curious to know why you think there are no missing parts when someone like Dario Amodei or Sam Altman is saying, “We’d like to see regulation.”

What I was responding to is that, in the case of both of the labs, one lab had 4 cybersecurity incidents triggered by them. Another one just had a couple more. In both of those incidents, there are plenty of laws to deal with them.

You have cybersecurity and unauthorized-entry laws. You have damage liabilities. You have all kinds of liabilities associated with cybersecurity. You have all kinds of liabilities associated with products. If your product does harm, if your product doesn’t perform as you promised, or if you entered into contracts with companies for service-level agreements, there are plenty of laws associated with that.

My point is: Apply those first, and don’t let this doomsday narrative cause somebody to relieve them of the laws that currently exist. Go and read between the lines. They’re actually not asking for more laws. They’re asking to be relieved of the laws we do have, and I think that’s a problem. We have plenty of laws, so let’s apply those first.

Do you think, then, these companies are asking to be regulated because they don’t want to have to handle this themselves and take responsibility for what they’re building?

They’re moving from labs to product companies, from non-customer-revenue-producing businesses to customer-revenue-producing businesses. That transition must be extraordinary because they’re doing it so fast.

These are 2 of the most consequential technology companies in history. There are incredibly talented researchers there. They’re doing excellent work, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re transitioning from laboratories into product-service companies generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue and expecting it to be hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue.

Both of them are increasing their compute capacity at a rate no companies have ever seen in human history, and deservedly so, because their products are good and useful. People want more of them. They’d like to generate more revenue, and their investors want to see their growth. All of that is good.

But there are laws. There are product-liability laws, and those product-liability laws ought to be tested against the current incidents. Then we’ll see what happens next. Do the obvious first. Do the practical first, and then we can talk about the theoretical later. But don’t talk about the theoretical without doing the practical.

In making the argument for no additional government regulation, I’m curious to know—

I’m arguing for exercising the current laws.

Right. But you are saying you don’t advocate, at this moment, for additional government regulation.

To do what?

Right. So if that’s the premise—

Until we know what’s missing, why add more laws?

On that note, do you have more faith in the 4 or 5 CEOs who control this technology than in additional regulation? Do you trust them to do the right thing and to allay some of the fears here?

3. Trust The AI Teams

They’re surely capable of doing the right things. What they’re transitioning from and to is understandable. First of all, they’re all young CEOs and first-time CEOs. I’ve been doing this for 33 years, and I get the benefit of hindsight and the ability to sit here in the back seat and pontificate about their businesses.

The fact of the matter is that they’re going through this transition. It’s not easy building a company, building organizations, building products, building industries, building a business and going public. All of that is new, and it’s all happening at the same time.

I’m empathetic to the enormity of the challenges they’re dealing with. I also have a lot of confidence in the capabilities of the teams they have. These are extraordinary people.

So you trust them?

I believe in them. I believe in the people. I’m also empathetic to the circumstances. I don’t approve of deflections and distractions about the end of the world. I’d rather they focus on the things that I know they’re focused on.

Their engineers are absolutely able to understand that the incidents they had require them to create more secure sandboxes, isolation and containment of their experiments. I’m certain they have learned that they need to monitor all of their software much more closely as it’s operating during testing and evaluation.

I’m certain that if their software were to interact from their cloud with external clouds and other services, they should let people know. If incidents were to happen, they should make sure they share them publicly so that the whole industry can learn from them and we can all improve ourselves.

This is how the cybersecurity industry works. Right now, all over the world, there are cyberattacks, and engineers are working feverishly to patch their software, improve their software and fix vulnerabilities. These are incredibly complex systems. The fact that we have open software and open-source software, so all the companies can defend themselves and upgrade their software, is one of the reasons why the industry works. It’s working right now as we speak, and we watch each other’s backs.

There are hundreds of companies that work together as a community. We have the asymmetric benefit of having a lot of defenders against attackers. There’s a lot to unpack about the incidents they had, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re back to grounding themselves in engineering. They’re going to improve their engineering and invest a lot more in evaluations, benchmarking and testing, and that’s a good transition for them.

I’m curious: As Americans look at you, you’re the CEO and founder of Nvidia, the most valuable company in the world. On this specific issue of safety, why should Americans trust your perspective when your company’s success and your net worth are directly tied to selling chips?

Our company’s success is directly connected to the safe deployment of products and services. If the computer industry doesn’t provide value to the world safely and productively, and provide the enormously positive impact that we have so far, our value would be diminished. It is to our very personal and industrial benefit that this new class of applications called AI can be produced and delivered to the world safely.

We have to do this with responsible optimism. The reason we do what we do for a living is because we believe it’s great for the world. We want our children to be part of it. My children are part of it. We want all of our families to be part of it.

We want a future where we have less human suffering, where companies can be more productive and where we can discover knowledge more quickly. We want to deal with aging populations. We want to have sustainable energy and use AI and market forces to drive the world toward sustainable energy. We want all of these things, but we have to do it responsibly and safely. We have to do this with maturity so that we don’t scare people with dramatic and hysterical predictions of the future that simply aren’t true.

The elephant in the room here is the race with China. The argument has been that we can’t slow down AI progress lest we lose to China. Do you think that’s a valid argument?

4. America Must Win The Race

My advice to every CEO in every industry, every student, every professor and every member of American society is that we want America to be as prosperous as we can. The more prosperous we are and the richer we are as an economy, the more we can provide for Social Security and national military security. The better a citizen of the world we can be, supporting other people through their challenges, trials and tribulations, pain and suffering, and the more philanthropic we can be as a nation. I would advise that every American citizen—everybody in America—pulls in the same direction as hard as we can.

So, should we slow down, and would that affect the race with China?

We should go as fast as we can, irrespective of anybody else. If China were to discover a cure for cancer, it’s great for us. If China were to invent a new technology for sustainable energy, it’s great for us. If China were to lead in many areas of science and math, and we were able to learn from them and benefit from it, it’s great for us.

But listen, we’re packing heat as a nation. This is a nation with extraordinary capability and extraordinary innovators. I’m proud to be part of the American technology industry, which I consider one of the 3 pillars of our national treasures. Of course, our financial system is one of them. Of course, our military is one of them. The industry that I serve and am part of—the technology industry—is absolutely one of our national treasures.

But how important is it?

We’re going to go as fast as we can, but we would never, and never should, ship products before they’re ready or deliver products that are unsafe. Nobody is expecting us to do that. But everybody is expecting us to succeed and help America be as prosperous as possible.

David Sacks told me earlier this week that he believes that if we slow down the rate of AI development, that could do huge damage to the American economy and the American military, and put the United States at a disadvantage. I want to clearly understand: Do you think we should be pacing the development of AI right now, given where we are vis-à-vis China?

First of all, David is incredibly smart. He’s thoughtful, deep and pragmatic. He is one of the great American patriots. It’s been a privilege to know him. I met him when he was an adviser at the White House, and he’s an incredible human.

I’m not exactly sure what the context of what he said was, but I’m fairly certain he wants America to go as fast as we can, but not faster than we should. We should go as fast as we can, but not faster than we should. If we’re compromising safety, that can’t happen. If you’re compromising safety and delivering products that are unsafe and put people in harm’s way, we have laws of all kinds to come after you.

The companies developing these technologies are perfectly incentivized to do the right thing. I have every confidence, because they’re incentivized to do so and have the capability to do so, that we will create and advance AI in a way that’s safe for society.

Dario Amodei says we should stop selling chips to China. The quote is, “Do not sell powerful AI chips or semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China.” What’s your response to that?

5. Protect American AI

We have to make sure that technology created by America advantages America first. Every country would do that. Every company does that. Every parent does that. Every industry does that. Every nation does that.

The United States has decided—and I’m very supportive of this—that we provide Nvidia’s best technology to American companies first. We’re in the generation of what we call Vera Rubin. Vera Rubin is shipping in volume production. We are several years ahead of China with this technology, and it’s being made available to Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, the American labs and American industries. That’s exactly what we’re doing, and we’re delighted to do that.

On the other hand, remember that AI is a 5-layer cake. It is not just the model. The AI industry is represented by the energy sector, the chip sector and the model layer, where they are. You could argue that there are 6 layers or 5, but above that are basically the data and application layers. We need every single one of these layers—everybody in America—to win.

We want to win in the energy sector. We’d like to lead the world in the chip sector. We’d like to make sure every application company wins. I love the fact that FedEx is going to be an AI company. I love the fact that Walmart is going to be an AI company. We need every company in America to be an AI company, not just one company or 2 companies.

You’ve got to take a step back and remember what AI is. AI is digital intelligence. How is it possible that every company in America isn’t supported and doesn’t have the capabilities of digital intelligence? Of course, every company of the future is going to have digital intelligence, or artificial intelligence, as part of the company. I want everybody to win, including the chip industry.

So, you disagree with Dario’s position that we should not sell to China?

I completely disagree that we should ban China from all American products. American companies should have advanced capabilities. But after that, every layer of the American AI tech stack—including traditional companies, AI model companies in every field and every chip company—should go serve the world and compete for the world.

Serving the world, capturing market share and capturing economic prosperity—that’s all about competing. America is about competition, and we ought to compete and not cede entire markets. Our market is not his to cede. We ought to compete for the world’s market.

I want to ask you about President Trump and your relationship with him. Do you agree with President Trump? You’re one of his closest advisers in tech and AI.

He has a lot of advisers. He has a lot of advice, and he’s an excellent listener. He has a broad range of people he talks to, and that’s one of the reasons he sees through these complicated situations.

Speaking of that, he said this week that he believes the concerns and fears about AI’s dangers are a hoax.

“The potential to destroy humanity with AI is a hoax.” Do you agree with President Trump on this?

Oh, yeah. You and I started the conversation just now with exactly this. I completely disagree that AI is going to destroy us—that it’s going to be the end of the world in 2030.

The president is calling this fear a hoax. Do you agree with his characterization of it? I was at the All-In Summit listening to you talk to him on the phone.

Well, I don’t want to speak for him.

I’m asking you about you.

I believe the claims about the end of the world, stirring fear across America—and the fact that it’s being done by the people who are doing it—make no sense to me. They must be doing it for ulterior reasons. Maybe it’s political, maybe it’s otherwise, maybe it’s just attention-grabbing, maybe it’s so they can get a great interview with you. I don’t know what the reason is.

However it’s characterized, 2030 is not going to be the end of the world. There is a 0% chance that’s going to be the end of the world. I think scaring people is unnecessary. It is irresponsible, and I don’t know what their motives are.

The other thing he said was that we don’t need more regulations. We need to apply the current regulations we have. That’s very practical, very sensible, and we just spoke about that as well. I agree with that.

He also said something interesting about his ability to make sure that AI does not have this impact on Americans. Do you agree that President Trump has the ability to fend off and prevent an AI crisis while he’s in office? You know him. You talk to him. Does he have that ability?

As the leader of America, with all of the laws and regulations we currently have and recognizing the incidents we now have in front of us, I believe we have the necessary laws and regulations to handle those things.

So he can fend it off, in your view?

Yeah, because America—our system—already has a lot of laws and regulations that apply to many different sectors of products and services. I think he’s saying practical things. Like we spoke about earlier, I think we have lots of laws and regulations, and they should be applied.

I have just 2 quick questions for you here. You will be attending the state dinner with President Xi Jinping of China. Is that correct? Next week?

Next week, yes.

If you get a chance to speak to him about this situation that we’re in right now, the one that Americans are so concerned about, what will you say to the president of China?

I would say that I’m delighted to see AI technology transitioning from laboratories to really useful capabilities, products and services. Because it’s making that transition, it would be good for all countries that are developing and advancing AI to do so in a way where we share best practices and maybe set global standards about product expectations.

Work more closely together?

Yeah, of course. Work more closely together. Look, they want China to be safe. They want China to have the benefit of AI. They want China to prosper, just as we want the United States to prosper.

I’m glad they have ambitious expectations and aspirations. I wish every country had aspirations and ambitions for a better tomorrow. I love that about them. As they advance the technology, we ought to make sure that we work with each other as much as we can.

There are, of course, areas where we can’t work together for whatever reason. It could be military reasons. It could be other national security reasons that could arise, and those are for the governments to sort out. Other than that, I think it would be great for us to work together in every possible way.

Can I ask you something about your personal stance here? I would be remiss not to. We all know that Jensen Huang is the very successful CEO of Nvidia. You are a billionaire.

You have said some of your fellow billionaires here in California are spending millions to fight Proposition 40, the billionaire tax as it were. You have said that if California passes it, you’d be perfectly fine paying it. Why do you see it differently from so many of your peers?

I don’t mind paying taxes.

Why not?

Look, I don’t like tax dollars wasted. I like that our country is efficient and runs efficiently. But I also support all that this country represents. I support all of our government officials in their civil duties to make America great and better. I love the infrastructure that we’ve provided for all of our citizens. I love what it’s created.

I am the ultimate American dream. If not for this country—the education, the ability to create a new company, pursue your dreams and let merit be the reason why you succeed; let your endeavor, your grit and your innovation be the reason why you succeed—I wouldn’t be here. I wouldn’t have met all the people who made Nvidia possible. I wouldn’t have met my wife in school. The list goes on.

I love this country in every possible way. It’s not perfect, but it’s incredible. I’ve had the benefit of traveling around the world, and sometimes, looking back in on your own country, all of our trials and tribulations and discourse—the messiness of our country in a lot of ways—that’s what makes it beautiful. It’s what makes it work. I’m delighted to be part of it.

Even if you might end up paying perhaps $8 billion over 5 years, it’s still worth it?

First of all, I’m glad you said that. The fact that I can afford to pay $8 billion in taxes over 5 years is a privilege. It’s not the $8 billion; it’s the fact that I can afford to pay $8 billion. I’m not afraid of paying taxes. I’m just afraid of being poor.

I have no trouble contributing to others. I’m famous for saying that I want to pay all of our employees as much as I can, and I do. Instead of paying people as little as possible to get their work, I try to pay people as much as possible. That’s a privilege of being successful. Frankly, I’m delighted to do it.

I feel it’s a privilege. It’s a responsibility. Nothing would give me more joy than to be able to pay even more taxes.

Wait, are you asking to pay more in taxes?

No. The more you make, the more taxes you pay. I’m okay with that.

That’s true.

I’m okay with that.

Well, Jensen, thank you. Do we have time for a couple more questions? I want to be respectful of your time.

I have all the time in the world.

Oh, you do?

It’s my team.

Excellent. I want to ask you about something that’s really bothering a lot of Americans right now.

There are a lot of people who don’t want data centers in their backyards.

Yeah. This is rare bipartisan unity. The backlash is bipartisan. Nvidia powers a lot of data centers. What do you say to the people who are speaking out and saying, “We do not want these in our neighborhoods”?

6. Data Centers Need Dialogue

First of all, I would say we’re sorry we didn’t come talk to you sooner. We should have come talk to them sooner. Before you even stand up a giant data center in some community, some rural area, some small town, we need to engage with people.

I grew up in a town of 600 people, and I went to a school with 300 kids. Those 300 kids—this was Oneida, Kentucky—that was it. If, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a data center were to crop up right next to the one grocery store, I think I would be alarmed.

First of all, we need to engage the communities long before we set up the data centers. I think all of my colleagues recognize this today. All of this happened so quickly, and it happened all over America so quickly. Sometimes we just didn’t realize, and we didn’t get a chance to be polite—to be a visitor in some new town.

However, the data centers are also improving tremendously and tremendously quickly. The cooling system now recirculates water. We use hot water to cool the data centers, so the amount of energy and cooling necessary is dramatically reduced. For the energy that we consume, we should be providing the power-generation plants. We should contribute to the local power grid and enhance its reliability.

One of the things the United States is increasingly understanding, using the market dynamics and market forces of AI and this incredible investment phase, is that for the first time in 100 years, we have an opportunity to invest in all kinds of sustainable energy. If a particular town would like solar, if it would like nuclear—whether it’s fusion or fission—or hydro, every single form of power generation is on the table today, and everybody is investing in it. That’s a fantastic moment.

If we want a sustainable future, the next five years, no doubt, will use much more fossil fuel. But in the decades after that, we’re going to see all kinds of applications of sustainable energy because of artificial intelligence.

There are so many great stories of towns that have benefited from investments by data center builders. Their community centers improved: new schools, new baseball fields, new roads, lower property taxes. All of that is on the table. I think data center builders should go to the communities, let them know that they’re considering building there, and let them know that the conversation includes an opportunity to upgrade their town, lower their taxes, and lower their energy bills.

There should also be some minimums. There should be some expectations about the aesthetics of these data centers. I think they ought to be designed better. They could be designed better.

A new approach to designing the data center. Although the main concern really is about—

Making something beautiful is just part of the equation. I think that today, nobody considers the aesthetics of a data center to be part of its functionality.

Well, people think a lot about the energy bills, the water, and the resources that go into it. That seems to be the primary concern among people who are protesting these data centers.

Water consumption—that’s a myth now. These data centers use less water. They don’t use evaporative cooling anymore. They use less water than a swimming pool evaporating all year long. I think all of that is historically understandable, but it’s a myth now.

Energy bills going up is actually the opposite. All these data centers should contribute to the grid, and when they contribute to the grid, it makes the grid more resilient. They reduce the power cost.

It sounds like you’re trying to say that people should reconsider having these in their neighborhood.

But you should still do it nicely. You should still make it more aesthetic. The setback should be farther away from the towns because these data centers have a lot of traffic going in and out. There’s noise and so on. You just have to be sensible about these things.

We should have gone and had dialogue with the communities very early on, before we showed up. It just happened so quickly, and for that, it’s unfortunate. But going forward, we can do a much better job.

You started Nvidia as a gaming-chip company. You were sitting in a Denny’s 30 years ago.

I was a dishwasher at Denny’s.

Yeah.

That’s why I love Denny’s. I love Denny’s—America’s diner.

Did you ever think, when you were a dishwasher at Denny’s, that you would end up on the front lines of a debate regarding AI and the end of humanity?

No. I was just really focused on doing dishes like no dishwasher ever did dishes, and I was the best busboy of any busboy who ever bussed tables. I brought enthusiasm to almost every job that I had. It didn’t matter what it was.

It seems like you’re bringing that same level of enthusiasm to your job today.

This is consequential. This is important. It’s an important conversation. I’m happy we’re having it, and I want to make sure the American public understands that it is our industry’s responsibility to build the technology safely, just as it is the drug industry’s responsibility to build drugs safely, the automotive industry’s responsibility to build cars safely, and the plane industry’s responsibility to build planes safely. This industry will build AI safely. We have to hold ourselves accountable to that.

Number 2: Don’t let the myths and the ridiculous, dramatic stories cause us not to be optimistic about this incredible capability. We do not want to be the country that invented the technologies of this industrial revolution but have our country be left behind. Don’t let that happen. I don’t want that happening for my kids. I don’t want it happening for your kids.

Can you explain what data centers actually do and why AGI could be a good thing?

7. AI Factories Reindustrialize America

Okay. That’s a really great question. About 350 years ago, the modern Industrial Revolution started. Electricity was being manufactured. It was a magical, almost mythical thing: You could have water go into this machinery, and this invisible technology called electricity would come out of it. We could transport energy all over the world, replacing candles, stoves, wood-burning ovens, steam engines, and so on. We made it possible for this new industry to happen, and a whole industry was built on top of it.

The next industrial revolution was really about the information age. We made it possible by building these data centers for the internet to be connected together so that we could find anything. In the previous industrial order, we could power anything. Now we can find anything.

Today, we’ve created this technology called artificial intelligence, where, given information and context, it can reason about the information you gave it so that it can answer and do anything. It can even use tools. Instead of you and me using a web browser, PowerPoint, Excel, or a 3D design tool such as AutoCAD or Blender, this software can reason about what you asked it to do, take the context, the information, and your intentions, and do the work for you.

The latest generation from OpenAI, called Astra, is incredible. You just tell GPT-5, “Here’s a picture of my backyard. Here are some examples that I would like—maybe a pool or a garden I’d like to place in it. I want you to turn it into a design file for my gardeners and carpenters so that they can do that backyard for me, design that house for me, or build that house for me.” GPT-5 uses all the necessary tools and the images you gave it, and it creates the CAD files for the house, the kitchen, or the backyard. It’s incredible. That’s what AGI does.

What’s necessary, however, is a new type of infrastructure. Instead of a power generator or a data center for the internet, we now need an artificial-intelligence factory. It’s an AI factory. Energy comes into it, data comes into it, and it produces these numbers we call tokens, which are basically reformulated into intelligence. I know that sounds complicated, but basically, energy comes in and intelligence comes out. It is an AI factory.

Input, output.

Input, output. It’s as simple as that. Of course, these factories have a lot of computers inside that Nvidia makes.

Now the question is: How big would this industry be? It turns out that just about every part of the economy and every human would like to know things and do things. Maybe we’d like to automate our shopping. Maybe we want to automate the planning of a vacation or a trip and find the best fares. I just gave you the example of wanting to improve our backyard or design a new kitchen.

Every single industry has information work to do. The world’s industries constitute a $100 trillion economy, and some $15 trillion of that would benefit from more intelligence than it currently has. These factories are a layer that goes around every single country. Every company will use it, and that’s the reason there are so many of these data centers. This is going to be a multitrillion-dollar industry.

The question then becomes: How do we think about these data centers from America’s perspective? The thing to realize is that this is the first time in 100 years—or at least the first time in 50 years—that we have an opportunity to reindustrialize the United States, meaning bringing manufacturing back to the United States. Of course, this is the manufacturing of something invisible, just as power generation was.

Not exactly your traditional car manufacturing.

That’s right. It’s not manufacturing atoms. It’s manufacturing electrons, if you will. It’s invisible, but it’s manufacturing nonetheless. It’s creating all kinds of manufacturing jobs across the United States. The construction workers, electricians, fitters, designers, and builders are all incredibly busy because they’re building several trillion dollars’ worth of AI factories across America.

This is the part that is really exciting to me. For the first time in several decades, this is a great opportunity for our country’s blue-collar workers, builders, and craftspeople. All of them are enjoying such prosperity now, and I love seeing that. We have a real shortage of electricians and construction workers.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the United States to reindustrialize, to be a manufacturing country again, to create opportunities for blue-collar workers and all the builders of our country, and to bring back building and manufacturing.

And so I think it’s incredible. It’s creating all kinds of jobs.

A lot of people don’t see data centers as a manufacturing story, so I think it’s interesting.

That’s right. It’s just a new version of manufacturing, just as I said earlier. Power generation is an industry. You have people in there building these factories, and they have to be built. They’re built by builders, and data centers are just the new version of manufacturing.

In this new version, the manufactured product is invisible. It’s numbers. I know it’s weird to be manufacturing numbers, but that’s essentially what it is.