AI Leadership, Economic Statecraft, and Workforce Impact

Name: U.S. Leadership in AI with Jensen Huang, Founder and CEO of NVIDIA, and Congressman Ro Khanna
Uploaded: 2026-04-16T18:35:43+00:00
Duration: 58 min 38 s
Channel: Stanford Graduate School of Business
Description: Summary and key takeaways on AI Leadership, Economic Statecraft, and Workforce Impact, covering The State of AI Computing has been reinvented; data centers now

Stanford Graduate School of Business

Apr 16, 2026

•

58 min video

•

2 min read

YouTube video ID: tofBqR5N1RI

Source: YouTube video by Stanford Graduate School of Business — Watch original video

PDF

Computing has been reinvented; data centers now operate as factories that turn electricity into tokens. The AI ecosystem is described as a five‑layer stack: energy, chips, cloud AI factories, AI models, and AI applications. Success across all layers is required for the United States to preserve its lead, but the application layer is the most critical for scaling the industry. When applications diffuse widely, the AI flywheel accelerates, driving broader adoption and economic impact.

Maintaining Competitive Advantage

Human capital fuels AI leadership. Sixty percent of AI startups are founded by immigrants, and 72 % of AI researchers earned their undergraduate degrees outside the United States. Fourteen of the world’s top twenty research universities reside in the U.S., providing a fertile environment for innovation. Academic freedom and the ability to challenge convention remain core advantages, while a thriving domestic industrial base supplies the necessary hardware and infrastructure.

Economic Statecraft and Policy

Deep interdependencies in energy and infrastructure prevent a full decoupling from China, making strategic export controls alone insufficient. Targeted tariffs must be coupled with domestic re‑industrialization to build resilient supply chains. Investments in manufacturing hubs across Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are framed as essential for national security and social cohesion, turning policy into a catalyst for a renewed industrial base.

Societal Impact and Workforce

Skepticism toward AI in the United States stems from distrust of elites and perceived economic inequality. AI is “capital biased,” so policies must ensure workers share in productivity gains. The radiologist case study illustrates that automating specific tasks—such as image scanning—often expands demand for human expertise rather than eliminating jobs. The greatest risk is not losing a job to AI itself, but losing it to someone who leverages AI effectively.

Mechanisms Behind the Trends

The AI flywheel spins fastest when the application layer reaches broad societal and industrial adoption. Distinguishing tasks from jobs clarifies that automating a task, like coding or scanning, allows professionals to scale output, creating higher demand for their services. This task‑versus‑job dynamic underpins the argument that AI will reshape work rather than simply replace workers.

Takeaways

The United States must dominate all five layers of the AI stack—energy, chips, cloud infrastructure, models, and applications—to keep its competitive edge.
Immigrants drive AI innovation, founding 60% of startups and comprising 72% of researchers, highlighting the importance of open immigration and strong research universities.
Economic statecraft requires strategic export controls paired with domestic re‑industrialization in regions like Ohio and Michigan to reduce supply‑chain vulnerabilities.
AI’s “capital bias” means productivity gains must be shared through policies that support an affirmative jobs agenda and broaden access to AI benefits.
Automating specific tasks, such as radiology image analysis, tends to increase demand for skilled professionals rather than eliminate jobs; the real risk is being outperformed by AI‑savvy workers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the application layer considered the most critical for scaling the AI industry?

The application layer directly connects AI capabilities to end‑users and businesses, driving widespread adoption. When applications spread, they create demand for the lower layers of the stack, energizing the AI flywheel and accelerating overall industry growth.

How does automating tasks like radiology scans affect employment according to the discussion?

Automating the scanning task frees radiologists to focus on interpretation and patient interaction, increasing the value of their expertise. This shift typically raises demand for skilled professionals rather than eliminating positions, making the main risk being outpaced by AI‑savvy peers.

Who is Stanford Graduate School of Business on YouTube?

Stanford Graduate School of Business is a YouTube channel that publishes videos on a range of topics. Browse more summaries from this channel below.

Does this page include the full transcript of the video?

Yes, the full transcript for this video is available on this page. Click 'Show transcript' in the sidebar to read it.

Helpful resources related to this video

If you want to practice or explore the concepts discussed in the video, these commonly used tools may help.

Books On Artificial Intelligence And Economics Recommended

Provides deeper context on the economic shifts and workforce impacts of AI discussed in the podcast.

Amazon →

High Performance Laptop For Ai Development

Enables the user to practice using AI tools, supporting the core theme that workers must learn to use AI to remain competitive.

Amazon →

Books On The History Of Industrialization

Explores the historical context of the US industrial base, which the speakers identify as a critical component for national resilience.

Amazon →

Links may be affiliate links. We only include resources that are genuinely relevant to the topic.

Summarize another video

Full Transcript YouTube

Well, good afternoon everyone. I'm
delighted to see such a full house and
delighted to have the opportunity to
kick off what I hope will be an
absolutely fabulous discussion.
So, we are gathering right now at a
moment of extraordinary transformation
in artificial intelligence.
AI of course is not just reshaping
business education, but it's raising
important questions about US leadership,
economic and national security, and the
future of work itself.
At the GSB, it is our responsibility to
not only help our students to understand
this technology, but to understand the
broader context in which AI leaders,
policymakers, and practitioners are
making decisions.
This is exactly why we are launching the
Stanford Leadership Institute. Now
the institute brings together uh
academic and academics, policy makers,
practitioners and our students to help
develop an understanding of the very
context in which leadership takes place.
My hope is that today's discussion will
surface practical insights, raise
important questions, and deepen all of
our understanding of how we can
responsibly harness harness the
potential of AI while thoughtfully
addressing its risks.
We are thrilled to be joined today by
our speakers. We have Jensen Hang, the
founder and CEO of Nvidia, Congressman
Ro Connor, who represents California's
17th district, and General HR McMaster,
former National Security Adviser and a
senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
and Freeman Spogley Institute for
International Studies, who's going to
moderate the discussion. Please join me
in welcoming these wonderful speakers.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
>> Sorry. I I'd shake your hand except
Congressman.
>> You you you can be in the center.
>> Okay. This is Hang on.
>> They came here to see you. I
>> think this might be the hot seat. I
think I'll sit over here.
>> I would shake your hand. I I put some
honey in my my tea and now everything's
sticky
like and I my first thought was what are
you a child?
Hey, well it it is it's a great honor to
be with both of you gentlemen and to be
with all of you. Thanks for coming out
for this panel discussion. It seems to
me this is kind of like a setup for a
joke. you know, a washedup general, tech
tech innovator and CEO and congressman
from Silicon Valley walk into a bar, you
know, what hap what happens what happens
next. So, uh, hey, what why don't we
just jump right into it. There's so much
to talk about, obviously, and I really
want to hear what's on your minds in
each of these general areas. But first
of all, I think we can all agree that
artificial intelligence related
capabilities are extremely powerful.
They have huge impact across society.
They hold great promise. Uh they're
affecting the way that we wage warfare
and they determine I think whether or
not we have a competitive advantage
economically or military militarily and
from a a national security perspective.
Could I hear just both of your thoughts
on how do we if you agree which I know
you both do that we should maintain our
competitive advantage. How do we do it?
>> Jonathan, why don't you start? Um first
of all I think it's helpful to take a
step back and ask ourselves what is it
that we did. Uh we have reinvented
computing as we know it. How software is
developed? How software is written? How
what software can do and how software is
processed at its most fundamental level.
In a lot of ways that's all we've done.
Now of course
the nature of computing also changed in
the sense that the class the way we did
computing in the past is what was called
retrievalbased computing. All of the
content was pre-recorded. You know, you
wrote a story, you designed something or
you recorded a video, you recorded a
speech and you store it on cloud
databases and data centers and based on
how you clicked something or whatever
the recommendation systems are and you
know whatever the algorithms are, it
would present that pre-recorded content
to you. The way that computing is done
today is called generative. It takes all
the context, the prompt, your intentions
and it understands because it now
understand it can perceive it
understands um it reasons and it could
you know do something write your story
summarize write software and so the new
type of computing is generative.
It is therefore seems intelligent. But
in the fun when you look under the hood
and you you know open open the data
center and you open up your computer
what you see is software running on top
of computers. Okay. And so this is a new
type of software. It is incredible in
that sense but it's no more incredible
in that sense.
>> It is it's not an alien. It didn't come
from outer space. Um you know
it's not things like that. Okay. And so
so I think that number one now because
of the nature of this of this this new
computer um everything about the
computer industry has changed because
it's so capable and it could do such
amazing things. Everything from the
nature of companies the position of
companies and the nature of data centers
went from storage of files to now
generation of tokens and I call them
factories. You turn electricity into
tokens. it's manufacturing something.
The classical data centers used to be a
file server. Now you have basically
token generators.
>> Well, that takes a lot of computers and
and so now the question is what can it
do? Well, I think that it's fairly clear
to all of us that
the latest rev of AI which allowed us to
go from perception to generative to now
agentic systems, this next click of AI
has proven to be incredibly capable and
and we expected it to be and it's doing
real really really great things. Now the
implications to all the different
industries we can go into a little bit
later. Um so the first thing is to
understand number one what is the
technology from an industrial
perspective what is it well from an
industrial perspective because of the
the way I described computing AI is
essentially a five layer stack of an
infrastructure it's energy on the bottom
chips next infrastructure like a cloud
AI factory AI models and then most
importantly AI applications and those
applications could be an enterprise
software or you know consumer software
or drug discovery or robotics or
manufacturing so on so forth.
These five layers each one of them have
industries and markets and lots of
different companies. And I think the the
most important thing to take away is
that if United States wants to and of
course we do want to stay in the lead,
it is vital
that we win in every single one of the
five layers. And each one of the layers
has its own issues. Each one of layers
has its own dynamics. Each one of its
layers um has different companies in it.
But it's completely vital that we uh
enable every one of those layers to
succeed. And then finally,
the single most important layer to
succeed.
And if this layer doesn't succeed, the
flywheel will never happen. And if the
flywheel doesn't happen, the technology
will never scale. The industry will
never scale. The most important thing is
that the application layer
>> is diffused into the United into society
into our industries and that AI is
actually being used
>> right
>> if we if we cause ourselves because of
anything that we decided to say um that
we decided to do and it caused our
country to be so fearful of AI that we
resisted it that we regulated it out of
society we regulated out of industry
and we slowed ourselves down,
it would be it would be really quite
unfortunate that this industrial
revolution that we invented that we
started that we're in the across the
board leadership position at that
somehow we didn't take advantage of. So
if I were to sum up what what you said
is is to really work on removing
barriers to adoption to AI adoption and
think about how you can accelerate the
the development of the technology but
then the application of the technology
and uh and Congressman Connor, what what
do you think are the keys to maintaining
our competitive advantage? What do what
are you um most concerned about in terms
of how we stay ahead?
>> Well, first of all, let me just say it's
an honor to be here. An honor to be here
with Jensen. When I first met Jensen,
his first question was, "Congressman,
how do you understand Maxwell's law?"
And uh gave me a pause and then he
proceeded to to explain it very simply.
And so he is someone who's an economic
patriot and I respect uh even where we
disagree, I've found him to be very
thoughtful. And General, I've
appreciated you putting our country
first and thank you to Stanford GSB for
hosting us.
The first thing in my view that gives
America a comparative advantage is that
we have people from around the world who
want to come here, study here, innovate
here, be part of the research
universities here. If you look at the AI
startups, 60% of them have been founded
by immigrants. If you look at the AI
researchers, 72% of them did not have an
undergrad degree from the United States.
They had an undergrad degree from other
parts of the world. 38% of them are
Chinese nationals who came to the United
States.
>> You're making me think of Wong An, you
know, the founder of Wine Computers.
>> Yeah.
>> And so I I believe there's something not
just about getting the world's talent,
but having the world's talent interact
with each other from diverse
perspectives that creates magic and
innovation. The second thing is our
research universities are where we are.
We have 14 of the world's top 20
research universities. You have uh uh
Sing uh Singa and Ping University. Two
in China. We have 14. Now, Nature
Magazine says that they have nine out of
the 10 top quantity, but we still have
the top quality in research. That's not
by accident. That's because we've funded
research universities. Of course, people
remember it was in Stanford that because
of NSF funding in 1969, you had the
ARPANET internet from UCLA to Stanford.
We need to continue to fund our research
universities. Third, I would say it's
our academic freedom. You know, in our
country, you could be uh as as I know as
a politician, you you could have any job
and your view on war and peace or
economics matters as much as a PhD, a
congressman or a president. And people
are not afraid to say you're wrong.
They're not afraid to question
authority. They're not afraid to speak
out. They're not afraid to con challenge
convention. That is our comparative
advantage. We need to keep that. And
finally, which is here at Stanford, the
tech transfer program. The idea that
universities can collaborate with the
private sector. We have a magic formula
with the government, universities,
private sectors working together. Those
in my view are the fundamental
principles that have allowed and will
allow America to continue to lead
whether it's AI or and other technology.
>> Great. Well, to to maintain competitive
advantage then we're going to remove
barriers to to application which can be
emotional attitudinal as and and you're
emphasizing human capital research
funding you know really academic
freedom. I think the power of our free
market is is is part of that. got to say
that here at the home of Milton Friedman
here, you know, at the Hoover
Institution. Um, but you of course there
are certain actions that we have to take
beyond even just funding uh research uh
to maintain our competitive advantage
that involve not only really incredible
innovators like like Jensen and your
team uh but but government policy and
and so how do you view economic
statecraftraft? What is the what is the
role of the tools of economic
statecraftraft? I'm thinking in terms of
an issue that that you've had to
confront directly, export controls,
inbound and outbound investment
screening, creating the right incentives
uh for uh for investment by maybe
countering elements of of economic
aggression, you know, dumping of of
certain materials to to maintain a grip
on critical supply chains for for
example. but also, you know,
deregulation and and removing barriers
uh that that um you know are are really
impeding us maybe from maintaining that
competitive advantage at all the levels
you described from energy all the way
through uh to application. But how how
do you view economic statecraftraft
really the role of government and
government policy in maintaining this
competitive advantage?
>> Um our situation is a little different
than most industries.
I would say that that the computer
industry, the computing technology
industry is one of America's national
treasures.
Unlike all of the other industries, this
industry leads the world.
Between computing technology, of course,
I'm at the epicenter of
computer technology education.
This is this is one of our nation's
national treasures, no doubt. The other
one of course is our financial services
industry, the backbone of the world's
economy. Almost every other industry we
need subsidies. Almost every other
industry we need protection. These two
we don't. These two industries we
thrive. We lead
at a level that is, you know, hard for
most people to understand. There's no
car company in history that has ever had
90 95% of the market. Nvidia's position
in China was 95%.
And so in our particular case, in our
particular case, it's not a regulation
is not about helping us succeed. This
industry was very successful. And so now
the question is is how how does
regulation affect us? Um first of all,
we want United States of course to
continue to be the world leader. We're
American company. We want America to
win. The question is how to do so in the
nature of technology and this is where
this is where we have to think about
what is the essence of the technology
when we talk about AI what are we really
talking about AI is not a model that's
not what AI is computing is not an
operating system you know it's not
exactly what it is and and uh and so
it's really important to understand what
is the AI industry how do we continue to
to nurture through this industry so that
it's enhances our national security so
it enhances our economic security so
that we have a thriving industry. If
that's where where policy goes to
enhance those pillars, uh it's really
important to then take a step back and
understand what is it that we're
regulating in what way do we want to
regulate in such a way that that we
retain and maybe even enhance our global
competitive advantage. And so I I think
the the the mistakes that that people
have about uh thinking about AI is that
AI is a thing. It's an industry that's
five layers deep
and we have interdependencies
with many of our adversaries.
>> In order for United States to advance
our AI,
we need our energy industry to grow.
If we want our energy industry to grow,
we need China.
If we want our infrastructure industry
to grow, we need China. And the reason
for that is because the supply chain is
so deep. We have so much dependency on
them on such on such a so much of the
core industrial
industrial technologies that build up
our industries. We just have to be
thoughtful about all these different
things. Think about the big picture and
ultimately optimize towards United
States America winning but not a
particular industry winning or losing.
Ro, I'd like to ask you this the same
question, but maybe emphasize what
you've been a big proponent um of, which
is to to reduce our dependence on so
much of the world's manufacturing on the
southeastern coast of China and and uh
and you mentioned that we need China to
really maintain our competitive
advantage, which is kind of by design, I
think, by the Chinese Communist Party
and their policies to create the dual
circulation economy to to get an an
exclusive grip on such on critical
supply chains and materials. You
mentioned energy, of course, the
reliance on batteries and turbines and
so forth. Um, Congressman Connor, what
are what are your thoughts about what
tools of economic statecraft could you
we apply uh to maybe, you know, in the
in the short term do what Jensen is
saying, which is, you know, maintain a
competitive advantage in any way we can
if it's importing certain components
from China that so be it if it has to be
that. But is there also a kind of
something we can do longer term uh to
reduce I would what I would call the
coercive power uh o of China's the
Chinese Communist Party over our
economy. Well, I agree with you. We
can't have China be the world's monopoly
when it comes to rare earths when it
comes to key starting materials for
drugs when it comes to active
pharmaceutical ingredients. I mean,
Jensen is right that the tech industry
here and the financial industry here has
been extraordinary in America's uh
comparative advantage and one of the
reasons we're the world's greatest
economy. But we made a colossal mistake
in this country, hollowing out places
where I grew up in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, where I saw steel shut
down, where we saw the entire Midwest
and uh so many places lose factory
towns, lose industry. This idea that we
could just be a financial nation, a
innovation nation without be having an
industrial base was a mistake. It was a
mistake for our national security and it
was a mistake for our social cohesion
and I would argue that we are still
facing some of the consequences of that
with the type of politics and anger we
see in our politics because a lot of
people lost their pride. people who had
served in the wars, whose grandparents
served in the wars, who built America.
Suddenly we said, "Okay, go move." And
if you can't be in finance or tech,
well, tough. And they said, "No, we
built this country." So my view is we
need a Marshall plan, 21st century
Marshall Plan for America, new economic
patriotism. Now, that means though, not
just strategic tariffs. I'm for
strategic tariffs for things not being
dumped. But if you put tariffs on uh for
example active pharmaceutical
ingredients and you don't have any
industry here, what do the tariffs do?
It just means the price is higher. So we
also need policies. An industrial
development bank or Raffael Reef has
this great piece in the foreign affairs.
He was a former MIT professor saying
let's have investment in emerging
critical technology to help it scale to
help build the new industry here.
Whether it's rare earths, whether it's
critical minerals, key starting
materials, robotics, whether it is uh in
uh places where advanced steel where we
want to make sure we have some
self-reliance and then I would enlist
people like Jensen and others to say how
help us business leaders help us
re-industrialize Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, parts of this country, but not
with the stuff of the past the things
that we're going to need for the future.
and how do we create those jobs and
industry? And I believe that can be a
mission that brings this country
together across party, across geography
and uh gets labor, business, technology,
government all working in the same
direction.
>> That's right.
>> As Congressman knows, the AI industry's
growth is the engine that's enabling the
United States to re-industrialize chip
manufacturing, computer manufacturing,
and building all these AI factories. We
are re-industrializing United States.
We're creating so many manufacturing
jobs and plumbing and construction
electricians and now you know fine tool
outfitters. Their salaries are doubling,
tripling. It's fantastic.
But we need a thriving economic engine,
>> a really really strong thriving economic
engine so that American companies can
afford to invest in the United States.
We are we're going to we're going to
invest half a trillion dollars
in manu and setting up manufacturing of
chip plants and computer plants here in
the United States. It's not possible if
we don't have a thriving business.
>> Sure.
>> And so one of the ways one of the ways
is to lean into lean into this and help
diversify
uh our reliance of manufacturing and
bring it on shore make you know create a
much more balanced economy.
>> Now we can't just be all carbs. I mean,
our company, our country needs to have a
great great labor force uh in the in the
information area, but also in the
manufacturing area, in the labor area,
in the crafts and and so we have the
opportunity now with a thriving industry
to do that. And so everything that we
can do to keep that industry, keep the
industry thriving is really a good thing
to do. And and maybe what government can
do is incentivize the kind of
investments you're talking about and
obviously create the try to create the
thriving economic environment that
generates the generates the capital, you
know, that allows you to make those
investments. I think, uh, Congressman
Connor, what you're talking about is is
a transition in the global economy that
occurred really largely after China's
entry into WTO, uh, in which many
Americans benefited from that transition
because of cheap goods that were
available from China, but many Americans
were left behind. You've talked a lot
about democratizing AI, Jensen. You've
talked a lot about encouraging adoption
across the whole economy, which I think
is a very similar similar theme to this
idea of democratizing um uh AI. Uh in
your recent paper, you talk about not
having AI concentrate in the hands of a
few billionaires, present company
accepted. Um but getting into everybody.
So, so what I'd like to ask both of you
is what are your ideas about how can
>> everybody come along for God's sake.
>> But this gets to your point too about
like hey the the kind of the doom
scenario right of people losing jobs and
so forth. How do you to use your term
democratize AI? How do you ensure that
this this massive transition you're
talking about and opportunity doesn't
leave Americans behind and allows
Americans all to you know to benefit uh
from the technology and its impact uh
across so many different sectors.
Well, you know, I start with the premise
that if America has been good to you,
you need to do good for America. America
has been very good to the three of us on
this stage. Uh we have been able to in
our own ways live the American dream.
One of the things that I respect about
Jetson is that he has talked about
having a sense of social contract of a
obligation to contribute back to the
state to the country. And there has to
be a recognition of how a lot of folks
in East San Jose or where I grew up in
Bucks County see the country. They see
19 billionaires.
I I don't know if Jensen's one of the
19, but who who have literally $3
trillion, 12.5% of the GDP. It's triple
the wealth concentration of the guilded
age. And 70% of Americans don't have a
uh view of the American dream. We've got
massive economic inequality. You know
what? They don't trust us. You know,
even though we invented AI, the highest
skepticism of AI is in America. And why
is that? Why is it that other countries
are more trusting it? Because they don't
trust the elite. They don't trust the
people in Congress. They don't trust the
president. They don't trust the business
leaders. They don't trust media. They
feel like we have not delivered for
them. So, we have an obligation to
figure out how we're actually going to
get this AI revolution to work for
everyone. And I can go into things in
detail, but two places in my view that
are so important is to have a uh jobs
program, a commitment to jobs. Now, I
was at Brown University uh the other
day, and I said, "How how many people
are concerned about jobs, and 80% of the
hands went up." When this was an issue
that William Julius Wilson was writing
about in black inner cities, few people
cared in America. When Deon and Kase
started writing about it in white
working-class areas, more people cared,
but not enough. Now you got like Brown
graduates kids having this issue. So
there is an opportunity
>> better then than Stanford, I'd say.
>> I mean, you know, Stanford, so Stanford
won't admit it.
But we have an opportunity to have the
most patriotic affirmative jobs agenda
in this country where we could say with
the federal government that for young
people coming out, you we're going to
hire you. You can work to rebuild your
community. You can rebuild it. I was
just at a park. You can help do that.
You can do counseling. You can help in
the care economy. You can get some uh
you can make local government more
effective or you can come to the federal
government do a moonshot bill.
>> You could join the army
>> or join the army. I mean that's you know
as you know it's 1% right. But I want to
have some sense of giving back uh even
if if you don't do that and we work with
the business leaders right. I mean, uh,
Jensen has worked, Nvidia would we've
been creating these partnerships with
H.B.CU. You could join something like
that where you get these skills and
let's figure out how we take this moment
of anxiety.
>> Yeah.
>> Where the reality is no one knows what
the disruption will be, where the new
jobs will be. I mean, it's, you know,
Jensen talks about the radiologists
having more demand. I would have never
guessed that. We we need to have
humility. We don't know. But we could
take this moment to say we are going to
have an affirmative jobs agenda that's
going to give people a sense of
rebuilding their communities in the
country, working for America, bringing
this country and maybe giving some new
national purpose to this country. And
and that to me would be one constructive
response to this fear uh of AI and
technology.
Well, I say to everybody
I I say to everybody, move to
California. Don't leave. It's the
highest taxes in the world, but it's
okay. And and um I and but the weather
is great. The the um
>> and a great member of Congress and a
great member of Congress, great
congressman. Um I f first of all I I
think this the narratives of AI
destroying jobs is not going to help
America.
>> Yeah.
>> First of all it's just it's false.
Of course with every technology and
every single day that goes by
uh jobs of the past are changed. Could
would you mind mention Ro mentioned
this. Do you would you mention the
example you've you've quoted before
about radiologists. Do you mind? uh oh
yeah sharing that with the audience it's
a great example
>> at the beginning of the AI revolution
one of the smartest and most influential
computer scientists
>> uh and one of the the uh the uh the
fathers of of AI modern AI said that in
10 years time uh the one job you don't
want is radiology and the reason for
that is in a decade AI is going to
completely revolutionize radiology it
will permeate every aspect of it will
automate uh radio radiology and reading
scans, a radiologist will be obsolete.
This is the one job you shouldn't go
after. Well, a decade later, he was
completely right.
AI has completely permeated through
every aspect of radiology. Uh, every
single uh radiology scan is now assisted
by AI and uh the number of scans uh that
are being studied by AI has gone through
the roof. He's completely right. The
part that was exactly opposite is the
number of radiologists increased.
And so the question is why is that? It
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
that the task that the radiologist does
radiology was completely automated. And
why would they need more radiologists?
And the reason for that is obviously
very clear. And most you know mature
people when you think through it your
job the purpose of your job and the
tasks that you do in your job are
related but not the same. And and using
myself as an example, if if they were
not the if they were the same, then then
somebody would observe that what Jensen
does really for a living is typing and
talking. And and typing and talking have
both been automated to a superhuman
level by AI. And yet I'm busier than
ever. I'm busier than ever. And so so I
think the first thing is to separate
those those two ideas. Now, what's
amazing is this. Then you say, why why
did I say we actually did harm? Well,
telling
rad people who want to go into radiology
that the f the future radiology is dead
caused the number of people who are
developing a career in that field to
decline. And so now look what happened.
We need more radiologists than ever and
we don't have enough. The purpose of a
radiology is to help diagnose disease,
work with patients, work with doctors,
diagnose disease. They're able to admit
more patients, study, scan, do more
scans, do a better job with health
health care. The hospitals are making
more money. They notice that radiology
department is doing incredibly well.
They hire more radiologists so they can
increase their revenues, take care of
more patients. That flywheel
is only sustainable if we have
radiologists, software engineers.
Somebody said that AI is going to
destroy all of the software engineering
jobs. Well, as it turns out, we now have
Agentic AI in inside Nvidia. It's every
everywhere. Every single software
engineer is using it. And the one thing
that you will observe, two things you'll
observe. Number one,
the software engineers that know how to
use how know how to work with AI are the
mo are the most popular software
engineers.
The software engineers that know how to
use AI, know how to use agent tech
systems, working with agentic systems
are the most popular and the most
successful. Number two, the software
engineers are busier than ever. And the
reason for that is because back then
they used to have an idea and they would
code it. It would take time to code. Now
we have an idea, it takes no time to
code. Now all of a sudden the computer,
the company is waiting for you for the
next idea. So you're in the critical
path all the time. And so what we see is
agents are contacting software engineers
perpetually in text. What's the answer
for my next thing? What's my what's the
answer? What do you want to do now? I
just fixed that. What what's next? Your
agents are harassing you,
micromanaging you, and you're busier
than ever. And and yet our company is
able to do more. We're doing things
faster. We're doing at larger scale.
We're thinking about doing things that
we never imagined. And so here's the
flaw. The fundamental flaw and it it it
drives me nuts that it's not obvious.
The fundamental flaw is that there are
people who think that Nvidia has to
write, we have to code, pick our
favorite number, a billion lines of code
a year. That if we just finish coding 1
billion lines of code, job done. That's
the definition of a year. And so if we
have AI automate that 1 billion lines of
code and instead of having 10,000 people
do it, it only takes 1,000 pe 1,000
people to do it. All of a sudden 9,000
people are necessary. Well, turns out
a billion lines of code was all we could
do with those many people in the time
that we had. I have dreams to write a
trillion lines of code.
And so the fact that we now have AI
assistance help us, we could explore
more space, do better work, do things at
a greater scale, do things more cost-
effectively, do things better. And so
the jobs didn't disappear.
The task was automated. Now, of course,
there are some jobs and the task is
exactly the same. and those those jobs
where the context doesn't matter you
know the world's always exactly the same
then I think those jobs uh will be
affected but it is very likely that
overall this is not even you know with
all technology evolutions it's not even
but overall my sense is my belief is
we're going to create more jobs in the
end there'll be more people working at
the end of this industrial revolution
than at the beginning of it just like at
the end of the last one at the beginning
of this one.
>> You know, I have I had a question later
on on workforce adaptation. I know
you've done a lot of thinking about this
as well. Do you want to just follow up
on on that,
>> Ro? I mean, I think Johnson's view of uh
abundance in some ways is is correct,
right? John Maynard Kanes had that
famous article about uh how uh his
grandchildren would only be working
15-hour work weeks and he was right
about the productivity increases uh and
the increases in output. But what he was
wrong about is that people would not
just be s content with the life of a
British nobleman. We wanted indoor
plumbing, you know, we wanted to be able
to fly places. We wanted this thing
called a smartphone. So it is true that
human demand, human uh desire is proven
to be infinite which creates more jobs.
The problem is when you look at the
industrial revolution or you look at
these technology eras if years later we
end up with a lot of jobs there have
been massive times of inequality,
massive times of job loss for the most
vulnerable, massive times of workers not
benefiting. And so my view is that what
we need to do is think about how in the
adoption phase, yeah, workers have
ownership, workers have bargaining
rights, workers have an ability to get
some of the gains of the productivity
that it's not just going to uh the
capital class, especially when AI is by
definition capital biased, and that
we're thinking about the entry-level
folks and people whose jobs may be uh
automated and thinking smartly about how
we adopt it. So you don't have four
trillion four million truck drivers out
of work or you don't have uh young
people three four years out of work and
that needs to be a concerted effort with
government and uh business leaders
universities to do that. I don't view
that as being an AI doomer. I not an AI
accelerationist. I'm an AI democratist.
I want this technology to work for for
everyone.
>> There's no question that bringing
everybody along is is really the single
most important thing to do. And and the
fact of the matter is it is
unlikely most people will lose a job to
AI. It is most likely that most people
will lose to lose their job to somebody
who uses AI. And so we have to make sure
that everybody use AI. Um it is also the
case you you hear many examples of this
where somebody used to be a carpenter
but because of AI they're now an
architect. you know, you could describe
things into AI and it comes out with an
incredible design, incredible draft and
and uh they can they can be interior
designers uh and so they elevate their
craft, they elevate their service and
elevate uh their business to a level to
be able to offer more. And so I think
that that the first thing that we have
to do and you're exactly right, we have
to make sure that people understand that
AI is not this incredible technology
that nobody knows how to use. AI is an
incredible technology that everybody
should know how to use. It's it's the
reason why it's the fastest adopting
adopted technology in history because
it's so easy to use. And so we have to
lower the barrier of it. We have to
demystify it. We have to make sure that
people don't aren't afraid of it so that
they take advantage of this tool to to
enlighten themselves to enable
themselves.
>> Okay. I I want us to talk more about the
impact of AI on certain sectors, the
promise of AI. But before that, let's
talk a little bit about the dangers. We
know that this is a competitive space.
We know that adversaries, potential
enemies are adopting AI and applying it
to warfare. Uh and and and of course
there's there's going to be a a desire
to regulate it or to put guard rails in
place. We saw this with the anthropic
department of war kurfuffle, you know,
in in in uh in recent weeks.
>> Kurfuffle is diplomatic
for bullying by the Secretary of War.
But
>> Right. Right. Right. Right. So, you
know, but when you sign a contract with
the Department of War, what did you
think it was for anyway? But anyway,
that's a side. So, so you know, of
course, if you want to regulate
something, you need all parties to the
competition and this is a competition,
this technology to sign up for it. Hey,
I don't think our this what I would call
the axis of aggressors, Russia, China,
Iran, North Korea, I don't think they're
going to sign up for whatever program we
put into place. What from your viewpoint
from a security perspective, an
international security, a national
security perspective is sensible in
terms of guidelines, protocols uh to to
cope with the the mislication, the
dangerous application of artificial
intelligence related technologies.
Any thoughts?
>> First of all, in my view, we need a
combination of protected frontier
models, but also open source. I mean,
you have China having Quen, right? And
Quen, they don't have Quen's most
sophisticated models being open source,
but they have Quen, which is a cheaper
model being adopted. I don't want
America not to have our models be a
standard
>> adopted in the world, across the world.
Yeah. But you could have a standard that
says if you use a certain amount of
compute power for training, if you have
a certain amount of uh power in terms of
uh the the the
use of uh a frontier model, then we're
going to make sure it's regulated on
terms of the export control, but we're
and not being open source, but we're
still going to compete on certain open-
source models so that uh we still have
American standards across the world and
don't seed the market to China or to
Quen or other uh models that they may
come up with. And the second thing I
would say is we shouldn't have a race to
the bottom. When I think of American AI,
I think American AI should be excellent
AI. We should be the AI where when
Europe buys it or Asia buys it, they
know it's safe. They know that the
agentic AI isn't going to do crazy
things. They know that the agentic AI
isn't going to engage in surveillance or
violate privacies. That American AI is
going to have American values. You know,
when I was growing up, you used to buy
American and you knew the stuff would
work and it people would say, "Yeah, I
want to buy American. That's what I want
for AI. I want America to have the
best." And that means having
well-crafted regulations. It doesn't
mean no regulations. But, you know, all
this this idea, every time I get on a
plane, I'm really glad we have
regulations. You know, I don't want a
world where we don't have regulations.
And so, we can have it for the FAA. If
we can have it for nuclear energy, we
should be able to have it for ABA for
AI, but not in a way of stifling
innovation, encouraging the standards
for our AI to be the safest, the best,
the least violating of privacy.
>> So Jess, I'd like you to comment on this
from the perspective of maybe the what
you see as dangers of overregulation as
well. I mean, the European model doesn't
seem to be working in terms of
incentivizing the kind of innovation we
see in this country. Uh and and then you
know we had the we had the mythos um you
know issue the last last uh you know
couple days 24 hours I guess. uh and and
are is that a concern for you or or do
you think that in terms of regulation or
do you think this is the free market
working you this is American ethics uh
working in terms of of the release of a
tool that uh that that could readily uh
and immediately identify zero day
vulnerabilities for
>> we should regulate applications as
rigorously as we we regulate
applications today applications in
industries and use cases we have and and
we just have to be mindful about
premature regulation and and so you have
to you have to decide um and this is the
wisdom and the judgment of different
different cultures. Uh some countries
tends to regulate after something
happens and as they see something
happens. Some countries tend to regulate
before anything can possibly happen and
so they both have their risk and you got
to decide you know what what is the what
is the consequence you you want to
endure. Do you want do you want your
your your society and your culture to
have absolutely no harm come to them and
therefore they take no risk at all and
and the industry therefore is suffocated
or do you want to take a little bit too
much industry got things to mop up and
so so and I just described I've just
described in fact two different regions
not not United States the United States
is still kind of somewhere in the middle
um but you know two different countries
that that in two different regions that
that have different cultures that way
with respect to technology regulation I
think I Whoever whoever it is that
whoever the country is that invented the
technology that owns the industry has
the right to decide whether they give
their industry head start benefits.
And the the thing that you have to be
mindful with head start benefits versus
no access regulations is you got to you
have to think through the ramifications
of your decision. You know it turns out
that a lot of countries we depend on.
It turns out, you know, ASML is not an
American country, not an American
company. And turns out, uh, just about
every one of our energy sectors, every
single one of our energy sectors rely
deeply on technology and and minerals
and whatnot that comes from from China.
And so depending on what game we want to
play and and uh we just have to realize,
you know, we're in an interdependent
world. And when you're in an
interdependent world and there is no
absolutes, you know, this is like we're
not playing tic-tac-toe.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, the world is a lot more
complicated than that. And when we want
to simplify that, simplify the world
into uh I'm going to keep everything to
myself. I'm going to take my marbles
home. You're not going to get any of it.
And you just got to be a little careful.
They have some marbles, too. And and so
in these inter interdependent worlds,
having a big picture understanding of
how the world and the systems work is
helpful. Number one. Number two, uh
having maturity and balance helpful.
Having nuance helpful, having a
long-term mindedness helpful. And so
these these things um ought to be taken
into consideration. But the idea that
I'm going to shut you off and and expect
that there's no repercussions is a bit
naive. So you're saying don't take the
ready, fire, aim approach. You're saying
it's better to think through the
consequences. You know what I what I
like when unintended consequences is
hard to extrapolate in technologies that
are moving as fast as AI.
>> Well, and this is a big point on
regulation. I think you know I think
I've heard this metaphor before that
that trying to regulate AI is like
trying to ask the Wright brothers to
first develop the maintenance manual for
you know 7 you know 707 uh you know
before they further develop uh the
airplane. uh but hey but there is a role
certainly for government as you as you
mentioned Ro you know government working
together with the private sector and I
would include academia here the role of
the university which you mentioned as
well can I just get both of your kind of
top level thoughts on how you see the
roles of of you mentioned we have to
work together internationally we have
partners we rely on but how just within
the United States the role of the public
sector private sector uh and academia in
maintaining what is the theme here our
competitive advantage
Well, it's the absolute key. Uh, and my
view is that we should be working uh to
set up uh jobs programs across the
country where you can have uh colleges,
community colleges, working with
industry funded with government so that
people have uh an understanding of
technology, an understanding of the
different opportunities whether it's
trade schools, whether it's a four-year
degree, whether it's not a four-year
degree. uh in terms of having uh
high-paying jobs uh we want to be
funding of course the research uh we
want to be opening the universities to
the talent from around the world not
restricting ourselves and more broadly
you know Jensen mentioned that we can't
decouple and I agree with that but I
think that the challenge has been we had
uh unfettered globalization we had
basically for 30 40 years capital saying
to the state you don't matter we're
going to go wherever we
And that didn't work for for America. It
didn't work in a lot of places. And
people said, you know what, we we can't
have just capital dictating the the
shots. We've got to make sure that uh we
have industry, we have community, uh we
have some self-reliance.
But in doing that, we don't have to go
to the extreme that we see today, which
is a sense that uh America is just going
to turn inward to reject uh immigration,
to reject uh cooperation with other
nations, right? One can view China as
having a monopoly on rare earths and
saying that's not right and we need to
rebalance, but also say we don't want a
cold war with China and we want to work
with China on climate change or AI or
solving global poverty. What I want for
an America is one that is more
self-reliant, that recognizes that
places have been hollowed out and
shafted and builds that, but then is
confident and confident to lead the
world on our values of pluralism, of
solving big issues like climate and
global poverty uh and the rules for AI.
A multi-racial confident America that is
not afraid to engage in the world. We
were we were shell shocked because we
didn't develop correctly. But if we
develop correctly and across the nation,
then I believe we can be a real global
leader and force uh and not have the
kind of uh isolationism
uh that has gripped us, which in my view
is one of fear, not of bigness, not of
the American leadership model of the
world. I agree with the congressman and
I I think the the um the place that we
have to find ourselves navigating to is
not the polar extremes. It's not all
it's not nothing and the idea that that
um uh trade is going to be unfettered uh
without without some some uh long-term
thinking about the industries we want to
protect. Not not for not for not for any
other reason. Uh we need to have have
domestic tranquility. We need to have a
balanced ecosystem. We need have a
balanced industry, balanced economy. We
recognize that we can't have unfettered
trade. We also recognize we can't
decouple. The concept to decouple, it's
insane. It's deeply uninformed. And and
so the world is somewhere in between.
And and when we when we when we realize
that the world is somewhere in between,
then all of a sudden we can be
thoughtful about the fact that we are
going to coexist with many countries
around the world. We're going to compete
with China, but we're not anti-China.
We're going to compete with China, but
we're not anti-China. We have to be very
careful that that there's a slippery
slope between anti-China and being
anti-Chinese. And at the moment that you
fall into that slippery slope, then the
first thing that you mention today, the
single most important asset of our
nation is that we are the place where
everybody wants to come. We're the only
country in the world where there's a
brand called the American dream. There's
no other country that says something
else. Dream, the Tahiti dream. It
doesn't exist. The American dream. And
and everyone wants to come here to enjoy
the American like you and I did. And the
fact of the matter is in order for that
to happen, we can't be ant anti- this
race, anti- that race, anti- this
country, anti- that country because we
want all their people to feel welcome
here. when we have everybody welcome
here, we're going to be able to with
everything that you mentioned in the
beginning, the university systems, the
the the the freedom of thought, all of
those things are going to play out.
Everything that I enjoyed in my my life,
my my lifetime, you know, you look up
look up the American dream in Wikipedia,
you might see my picture
and and this this is the ultimate
demonst I am the ultimate demonstration
of the American dream. My I'm first
generation
And so this is an incredible thing and
and therefore I am completely with you.
We we must protect that. We must nurture
that. And to nurture that is not at the
extremes. It is not at the extremes.
>> It's not we can't be freeforall. On the
other hand, we can't be decoupled and we
you know we can't be we can't be anti-
everybody. um we are we're allowed to
compete with everyone with great
confidence.
When we have confidence, we are
delighted to compete.
You know, I I happen to know a lot about
competition. I don't have to hate
anybody. I don't have to hate anybody. I
don't have to be anti- anybody. And we
can compete and win. And that's America.
That's our industry. And I think we
could do that. I think the country is
desperate for that. To ask Americans to
be bigger. You know, both Jensen and I
live the American dream. He has a lot
more zeros in his net worth. But we both
have but but but but I would argue that
I have something that's so precious to
to be one of a thousand 11,000 people to
represent the uh Congress of the
greatest nation in the world to
represent this region that is literally
you know onethird of the wealth
originates in this region and I get to
go and represent every day uh this
region to the United States. It's an
incredible honor.
>> Yeah.
>> And you know, I grew up, my parents were
immigrants from India. My grandfather
was part of Gandhi's independence
movement. I grew up middle class. But in
the 70s and 80s, I believed, even though
I went to public school, I had to take
out too much loans. I believe you could
do anything in America.
>> You you could be anything. And somehow
we have lost that belief in this
country. Partly because of people not
having health care and child care and
the material necessities. partly because
of the de-industrialization, but it's
also just been that we we we we have
become fearful. We have been taught to
hate each other or dislike each other.
And I think that what what I would love
if there's any takeaway from this panel
is for people to say, you know what, we
we can believe in this American dream of
a multi-racial America that's done
something that no civilization has ever
done, where people from around the world
can come here and do anything. Uh, and
that that's what our project is. That's
what the America we want to work
towards.
>> Hey, well, I I mean, that's just a heck
of a way to end, but
I'd like to give I'd love to give both
of you just a chance to to close out and
and maybe you can hit on this if you
want or or if uh but uh you know, we're
talking really about restoration of
confidence.
The also the topic is competing uh and
and maintain our competitive advantage
in artificial intelligence. uh
technologies and the application of
them. Uh you know, could you maybe
describe what you think is the promise
associated with these technologies and
then maybe also some advice for the
Stanford students here too? You know,
what uh while they're here, what what
should they make sure they study or what
would you recommend they study or what
experiences they should seek out uh to
to maybe take full advantage of of those
tremendous opportunities associated uh
with this technology?
Look, AI can do incredible things. Uh
it's uh something that can make sure
that we start to cure rare diseases
because of the technology that we will
have. Uh it is going to allow for
enormous uh develop developments in
mRNA. I mean just like we have the DNA
genome now with AI you may actually be
able to map out mRNA and that may as we
saw not just with COVID in the vaccine
that may lead to cures for innumerable
diseases. Uh it has the potential uh to
uh help with the re-industrialization of
this country. it has the potential to
make uh education more accessible not
just in the United States but around the
world. So there there's no um reason to
just be anti- the development of a
technology. What I want to see though is
that we don't make the mistakes in this
country of the industrial revolution
where for 60 years uh Britain led and
was the wealthiest country but the
working class was did not see gains. The
inequality increased uh we can't
survive that as a country given the
anger and the polarization and the
ravages of globalization. So how do we
adopt the goal of adopting AI but do so
uh thinking first and foremost about the
working class about people who have been
left out about making sure uh that they
will have economic security and
recognizing that at the end of the day
the final project of America is not just
technological advancement. the final
project of America is becoming this
cohesive multi-racial democracy with the
American dream for everyone. That should
be the north star and we work backwards
into seeing how technology fits into
that. The point I make all the time is
we need uh Silicon Valley asking what
this region can do for America, not what
America can do for Silicon Valley.
>> Thank you, Jensen. Last word. This is a
better time to be in school and
graduating from school than ever. I hear
the opposite and I but I see personally
um nothing but extraordinary
opportunities ahead.
As an example, there are more startup
companies today than at any time in
history.
more startups and more industries and
more applications solving problems that
we thought were never never possible
until now. We understand the lang we
nearly understand using AI the language
of the biological machine for the first
time.
The ability for us to understand so many
different fields of science and
different problems at a scale that we
never thought possible is right in front
of us. This is the best of times to be
in school. This is the best of times to
be graduating from school because the
world is reset.
An entire industry, the largest industry
in the world, the computer industry is
reset. And because every industry in the
world is built on the computer industry,
every industry is reset. You are at
exactly at the same place as everybody
else. Nobody has a head start on you.
This is the perfect time to engage the
most powerful technology the world's
ever known. It is personalized.
Everybody has it on their browser.
It is accessible. Obviously, everybody's
using it.
And put it to use in service of your
career, in service of your dreams to
solve great problems. I can't imagine
how excited you must be. And yet I hear
sometimes you're concerned about the
future.
I just need you to know that what I see
on the other side is a welcoming
industry
looking for new college grads who are
expert at using AI. Whether it's expert
at using AI for marketing or finance or
engineering or software engineering, we
are looking for expert AI users.
A whole new generation is going to come
into the industry
powered by a new technology that the
world's never seen before and you are
the first generation. It's an incredible
opportunity and all of us on the other
side are waiting for you. Looking
forward to working with you to build the
future together. Thank you.
>> All right,
Jensen, thank you so much.
Thank you so much. Two great Americans
here. Appreciate you guys.
Thank you. That was great. Thank you.

Help & FAQ

Stanford Leadership Forum 2026: Geoeconomic Power and Economic Security

Stanford Graduate School of Business

Apr 30, 2026

Maintaining Competitive Advantage

Economic Statecraft and Policy

Societal Impact and Workforce

Mechanisms Behind the Trends

Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the application layer considered the most critical for scaling the AI industry?

How does automating tasks like radiology scans affect employment according to the discussion?

Who is Stanford Graduate School of Business on YouTube?

Does this page include the full transcript of the video?

Helpful resources related to this video

Share This Summary

Embed This Summary