Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton Calls Trump a 'Corrupt, Senile Felon' and Faults His Grasp of AI
Key Takeaways
- •Geoffrey Hinton, recipient of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics, described President Trump as a "corrupt, senile felon" and said the president understands almost nothing about artificial intelligence.
- •Hinton accused billionaires Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel of not believing in democracy and of viewing Trump as a tool for advancing their ambitions to control society.
- •Hinton argued that relabeling artificial intelligence as "superintelligence" does not make existing systems smarter, since the term scientifically refers to systems that exceed human intelligence.
- •Hinton compared the idea of technology companies regulating themselves to allowing tobacco companies to design their own warning labels.
- •Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently disputed Hinton's AI risk predictions as lacking sufficient scientific evidence, while Hinton maintains a 10-20% estimate of human extinction risk from the technology in the coming decades.

Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist widely regarded as the godfather of artificial intelligence, launched a sharp critique of President Donald Trump, calling him a "corrupt, senile felon" and questioning his grasp of a technology the president has fully embraced.
Hinton, who received the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics and ranks among the world's most influential researchers, discussed Trump's mental acuity in an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday.
His remarks targeted not only the president but also his Silicon Valley allies. Hinton accused billionaire investors Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel of ambitions that extend well beyond accumulating billions, saying the trio "don't believe in democracy." In his view, they regard themselves as superior individuals who should "control society" and see Trump as a useful instrument for advancing those ambitions. The remarks sharpen a widening public split between safety-focused researchers and the president's Silicon Valley allies.
Some of his harshest criticism was reserved for Trump himself, whom Hinton argued displays a fundamental lack of understanding of a rapidly evolving technology capable of transforming society. The comments referred to artificial intelligence and the president's recent insistence on replacing that term with "superintelligence."
Hinton said Trump understands "almost nothing" about the technology. Superintelligence, he explained, has a definite scientific meaning — systems that exceed human intelligence — and merely changing the name does not make existing systems any smarter. Trump recently declared on Truth Social that anyone refusing to adopt his preferred terminology was "THE ENEMY."
Hinton also challenged the president's opposition to government safeguards, particularly his apparent willingness to let technology companies regulate themselves. He likened that approach to empowering tobacco companies, asking: "Do we think tobacco companies should have been allowed to design the warnings on the packets? So that they could print them in a six-point font, in dark grey on black?"
Hinton's comments followed criticism from power players in the industry, a reflection of how debates over AI risk increasingly pit safety-focused researchers against the executives building the technology. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently pushed back on Hinton's predictions about the dangers of advanced AI, arguing that his estimates lacked sufficient scientific evidence. Hinton has previously estimated a 10% to 20% chance that the technology could cause human extinction in the coming decades. Defending his warning, he said the precise probability matters less than recognizing the possibility of catastrophe.
He further cautioned that humanity has only a few years to get used to sharing the world with machines that are becoming more and more intelligent at a rapid pace. Hinton, who left Google in 2023 to speak openly about the dangers of the technology, maintained that failing to prioritize safety when developing more powerful systems could lead to irreversible consequences. How regulators respond to increasingly capable systems, and whether the dispute over terminology amounts to more than semantics, remain open questions.