From our other sites
The story
A post spreading on X (formerly Twitter) claims that NVIDIA’s CEO said children won’t need to study math in the AI era, since scholarly work and research will be handled by AI instead — and it became a hot topic on a thread in 5ch’s “Nanademo Jikkyo G” (a live-commentary discussion board). The thread saw a head-on clash between posters arguing “you still need to grasp math concepts to give AI instructions” and those countering that “thinking of AI as just a tool is the outdated view.” The discussion eventually broadened into questions about what academic credentials are even worth, and which jobs will survive once AI is everywhere.
NVIDIA’s CEO has flatly declared: “In the AI era, children don’t need to learn ‘math.’”
How are you anti-AI folks going to answer this one?
Source: x.com / See the original post here
What people said
Found the idiot who still thinks AI is just a tool.
That's about as dumb as fretting over "what if smartphones suddenly stopped working worldwide" lol
Even when AIs train other AIs, it's ultimately just distillation.
AI is developing AI these days, you know.
It can construct logic, so it's capable of development too.
All I ever get from them is the impression it's just self-serving corporate talk.
AI: "What would you like me to do?"
Idiot: "I dunno…"
Lol
If you're not smart to begin with, you can't even judge whether the AI's right or wrong.
Who'd have thought a time would come when being smart is worth nothing.
Meanwhile there's this reversal happening where people with nothing invested just hand everything to AI and get results anyway.
AI really did flip our values upside down.
I honestly don't know how that's handled these days.
What's your basis for saying humans are more trustworthy than AI?
Does using AI turn you into someone who answers a question with a question?
It's not about trust — only a human can know what a human actually wants, right?
And it's a human who judges whether that's really what they wanted.
More precisely, the end of the middle class.
A world of just a tiny chosen elite and manual laborers.
Straight out of the movie Elysium.
Universal basic income, surely.
Top-tier STEM guy: "In the end humans can't beat AI, so having a human do it is just inefficient."
What explains that gap?
Maybe when you're that smart you just see through everything.
Pretty much everyone at Meta, OpenAI, and that whole crowd says the same thing anyway.
The bottom tier can't even use AI properly to begin with.
Sunk cost, as always.
Even at NVIDIA, the rank-and-file will get replaced eventually.
It's not that extreme, honestly.
Competition based on academic ability will keep going, but the yardstick will shift away from "who creates value" toward "who's fit to take responsibility."
Just like we don't hand out medical licenses to just anyone, the position of signing off on what AI produces will simply come with much stricter requirements.
People just won't bother chasing such a limited slice of the pie anymore.
Photographers + assistants
Models
Studios
Wardrobe
Makeup
All of it is finished, no question.
Only a tiny handful of supermodels will survive.
Ads are a headache whenever the celebrity you cast screws up.
If you can skip using humans entirely, that's obviously the better option, so the industry will collapse overnight.
Even if machines end up handling every physical task for you, you clearly can't just live bedridden forever.
I think the same goes for your brain.
Only a tiny, limited pool of elite talent will survive.
Probably just Tokyo University, Kyoto University, the other former imperial universities, Tokyo Tech, Tokyo University of Science, Tsukuba, and the very top private-university science departments.
AI's already smarter than those guys anyway.
incompetent people who can merely operate AI will just still be incompetent.
Education is still necessary — that much doesn't change.
Competent + can use AI > incompetent + can use AI >> competent + can't use AI > incompetent + can't use AI
Those things lie, after all.
Humans lie too, you know.
Gemini lies constantly, as always.
Google handing Gemini out to schools is straight-up insane.
Background and key points of this topic
This remark spread as a summarized quote from an X account, so the full original statement and the context in which it was made can’t be confirmed as of this thread. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has made similar remarks before, such as saying children don’t need to learn programming, and this looks like an extension of his recurring argument that AI will take over routine learning and skills. Meanwhile, the thread’s counterargument — that giving AI precise instructions still requires basic knowledge — echoes a point often raised in discussions of generative-AI education: that even the people writing prompts need domain expertise. The fact that the discussion expanded into questions about academic credentials and “which jobs will survive” likely reflects underlying anxiety about how AI’s spread is reshaping views on education and work.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Nanademo Jikkyo G) thread “NVIDIA president: “Kids no longer need math — scholarship and research are for AI, not people”.”
Leave a Reply