Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Rejects Calls to Slow AI Development, Says No New Laws Needed

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has pushed back against calls for governments to slow artificial intelligence development, arguing that AI safety should primarily be addressed through engineering and rigorous product testing rather than new laws.

Speaking at Salesforce’s Dreamforce conference, Huang said safety remains extremely important but described it as an engineering challenge. He argued that companies should thoroughly test their AI products and avoid releasing systems until they are confident about their safety.

According to Huang, companies can regulate the pace of their own development by delaying products that are not ready. He also rejected the idea that AI companies must choose between rapid development and safety, saying both objectives can be pursued simultaneously.

His comments come amid a growing debate within the technology industry over how governments should respond to increasingly powerful AI systems. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has proposed stronger government involvement to help slow frontier AI development, while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk have supported aspects of the broader approach.

Other technology leaders have offered different views. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has argued that companies should take responsibility for ensuring AI safety themselves, while Huang has opposed proposals to slow US AI development.

Nvidia’s position carries particular significance because the company is a leading supplier of advanced chips used in AI data centres worldwide. Huang has repeatedly argued that maintaining the pace of AI development is important for technological and economic progress.

Earlier, Huang appeared alongside US President Donald Trump during a live event, where both rejected calls to slow the US AI industry. Huang said he remained highly ambitious about the potential of AI across companies, industries and countries.

The differing positions from major technology executives highlight an ongoing debate over whether AI risks should be addressed primarily through corporate safeguards, government regulation, or a combination of both.