Nvidia has soared 45% in 2 months. These forces are reviving the hype for Wall Street's favorite AI play.
Nvidia stock has embarked on a fresh rally thanks to four big catalysts that are generating new enthusiasm for artificial intelligence chip maker.
The stock has climbed 20% over the last month. Since its most recent low in April, the move up is even sharper. After bottoming during the broader market sell-off caused by Donald Trump's tariff announcements, the stock is up 45%, a gain of about $1 trillion in market cap. The stock is up about 5% year-to-date.
That latest rally follows a rough few months for Nvidia. Shares were down more than 30% year-to-date in early April as concerns swirled around export controls and Trump's tariffs, which complicated the chipmaker's business in China.
While the stock has benefited from an easing of tariff-related headwinds that's also boosted the broader market, there are several company-specific forces driving the rally.
Here is what's sparked the latest run of gains for the top chip maker.
AI diffusion rule rollback
The Commerce Department did away with the Biden administration's AI diffusion rule in mid-May, removing restrictions on which countries Nvidia can sell AI chips to.
Those restrictions have been a major overhang for Nvidia stock this year. At a recent tech conference, Ceo Jensen Huang told reporters that export controls have hurt Nvidia's business in China.
"All in all, the export control was a failure," Huang said at the event. "The fundamental assumptions that led to the AI diffusion rule in the beginning, in the first place, have been proven to be fundamentally flawed."
Nvidia's big Saudi deal
Nvidia announced a major partnership with Humain in May. The AI firm is controlled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund.
The deal involves Humain purchasing advanced semiconductors from Nvidia to create AI infrastructure in the nation. In the first phase of the project, Nvidia will send 18,000 GB300 Frace Blackwell AI supercomputer chips, the firm said in a statement.
That partnership came shortly after Saudi Arabia pledged to invest $600 billion in various US industries, including AI and infrastructure.
"Those 'allies' want to invest here in the USA and also get a hold of a TON of Nvidia chips for domestic AI factories. For Nvidia shareholders, it would seem that this repeal is great news and that the administration is reigniting the 'Sovereign Thesis,'" analysts at Melius Research wrote in a note last month.
Earnings calm jittery investors
Nvidia's first-quarter results were once again strong. The chipmaker reported $44.06 billion in revenue, above analysts' estimates of $43.32 billion.
Perhaps more importantly, however, Huang soothed investors who have been nervous about the impact of disruptions to business in China.
On the earnings call, the company noted that it took a hit from China, but business is still basically booming. Huang slammed export controls, but he affirmed his faith in the Trump administration.
"The president has a plan," Huang said to investors. "He has a vision, and I trust him."
Deepwater Asset Management said last week that Huang's comment suggests that the chipmaker could be in a favorable position as trade negotiations between the US and China continue.
"My best guess is Nvidia will be part of a broader trade agreement with China," analysts from the firm wrote.
No slowdown in enterprise AI spending
The AI hyperscalers like Meta Platforms and Microsoft don't appear to be pulling back on AI spending.
Tech titans like Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon have pledged to spend more than $300 billion this year on AI-related capex. Apple, meanwhile, has said it would spend $500 billion over the next four years.
"Q1 earnings from mega-cap tech companies have also reinforced AI investment visibility, with customers maintaining or increasing their 2025 capex plans," Angelo Zino, a senior equity analyst at CFRA Research, wrote in a note, adding that he believed Nvidia's growth in data centers would run on for at least the next two years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why is AI halllucinating more frequently, and how can we stop it?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The more advanced artificial intelligence (AI) gets, the more it "hallucinates" and provides incorrect and inaccurate information. Research conducted by OpenAI found that its latest and most powerful reasoning models, o3 and o4-mini, hallucinated 33% and 48% of the time, respectively, when tested by OpenAI's PersonQA benchmark. That's more than double the rate of the older o1 model. While o3 delivers more accurate information than its predecessor, it appears to come at the cost of more inaccurate hallucinations. This raises a concern over the accuracy and reliability of large language models (LLMs) such as AI chatbots, said Eleanor Watson, an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) member and AI ethics engineer at Singularity University. "When a system outputs fabricated information — such as invented facts, citations or events — with the same fluency and coherence it uses for accurate content, it risks misleading users in subtle and consequential ways," Watson told Live Science. Related: Cutting-edge AI models from OpenAI and DeepSeek undergo 'complete collapse' when problems get too difficult, study reveals The issue of hallucination highlights the need to carefully assess and supervise the information AI systems produce when using LLMs and reasoning models, experts say. The crux of a reasoning model is that it can handle complex tasks by essentially breaking them down into individual components and coming up with solutions to tackle them. Rather than seeking to kick out answers based on statistical probability, reasoning models come up with strategies to solve a problem, much like how humans think. In order to develop creative, and potentially novel, solutions to problems, AI needs to hallucinate —otherwise it's limited by rigid data its LLM ingests. "It's important to note that hallucination is a feature, not a bug, of AI," Sohrob Kazerounian, an AI researcher at Vectra AI, told Live Science. "To paraphrase a colleague of mine, 'Everything an LLM outputs is a hallucination. It's just that some of those hallucinations are true.' If an AI only generated verbatim outputs that it had seen during training, all of AI would reduce to a massive search problem." "You would only be able to generate computer code that had been written before, find proteins and molecules whose properties had already been studied and described, and answer homework questions that had already previously been asked before. You would not, however, be able to ask the LLM to write the lyrics for a concept album focused on the AI singularity, blending the lyrical stylings of Snoop Dogg and Bob Dylan." In effect, LLMs and the AI systems they power need to hallucinate in order to create, rather than simply serve up existing information. It is similar, conceptually, to the way that humans dream or imagine scenarios when conjuring new ideas. However, AI hallucinations present a problem when it comes to delivering accurate and correct information, especially if users take the information at face value without any checks or oversight. "This is especially problematic in domains where decisions depend on factual precision, like medicine, law or finance," Watson said. "While more advanced models may reduce the frequency of obvious factual mistakes, the issue persists in more subtle forms. Over time, confabulation erodes the perception of AI systems as trustworthy instruments and can produce material harms when unverified content is acted upon." And this problem looks to be exacerbated as AI advances. "As model capabilities improve, errors often become less overt but more difficult to detect," Watson noted. "Fabricated content is increasingly embedded within plausible narratives and coherent reasoning chains. This introduces a particular risk: users may be unaware that errors are present and may treat outputs as definitive when they are not. The problem shifts from filtering out crude errors to identifying subtle distortions that may only reveal themselves under close scrutiny." Kazerounian backed this viewpoint up. "Despite the general belief that the problem of AI hallucination can and will get better over time, it appears that the most recent generation of advanced reasoning models may have actually begun to hallucinate more than their simpler counterparts — and there are no agreed-upon explanations for why this is," he said. The situation is further complicated because it can be very difficult to ascertain how LLMs come up with their answers; a parallel could be drawn here with how we still don't really know, comprehensively, how a human brain works. In a recent essay, Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI company Anthropic, highlighted a lack of understanding in how AIs come up with answers and information. "When a generative AI system does something, like summarize a financial document, we have no idea, at a specific or precise level, why it makes the choices it does — why it chooses certain words over others, or why it occasionally makes a mistake despite usually being accurate," he wrote. The problems caused by AI hallucinating inaccurate information are already very real, Kazerounian noted. "There is no universal, verifiable, way to get an LLM to correctly answer questions being asked about some corpus of data it has access to," he said. "The examples of non-existent hallucinated references, customer-facing chatbots making up company policy, and so on, are now all too common." Both Kazerounian and Watson told Live Science that, ultimately, AI hallucinations may be difficult to eliminate. But there could be ways to mitigate the issue. Watson suggested that "retrieval-augmented generation," which grounds a model's outputs in curated external knowledge sources, could help ensure that AI-produced information is anchored by verifiable data. "Another approach involves introducing structure into the model's reasoning. By prompting it to check its own outputs, compare different perspectives, or follow logical steps, scaffolded reasoning frameworks reduce the risk of unconstrained speculation and improve consistency," Watson, noting this could be aided by training to shape a model to prioritize accuracy, and reinforcement training from human or AI evaluators to encourage an LLM to deliver more disciplined, grounded responses. RELATED STORIES —AI benchmarking platform is helping top companies rig their model performances, study claims —AI can handle tasks twice as complex every few months. What does this exponential growth mean for how we use it? —What is the Turing test? How the rise of generative AI may have broken the famous imitation game "Finally, systems can be designed to recognise their own uncertainty. Rather than defaulting to confident answers, models can be taught to flag when they're unsure or to defer to human judgement when appropriate," Watson added. "While these strategies don't eliminate the risk of confabulation entirely, they offer a practical path forward to make AI outputs more reliable." Given that AI hallucination may be nearly impossible to eliminate, especially in advanced models, Kazerounian concluded that ultimately the information that LLMs produce will need to be treated with the "same skepticism we reserve for human counterparts."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bosses want you to know AI is coming for your job
SAN FRANCISCO - Top executives at some of the largest American companies have a warning for their workers: Artificial intelligence is a threat to your job. CEOs from Amazon to IBM, Salesforce and JPMorgan Chase are telling their employees to prepare for disruption as AI either transforms or eliminates their jobs in the future. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. AI will 'improve inventory placement, demand forecasting and the efficiency of our robots,' Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in a Tuesday public memo that predicted his company's corporate workforce will shrink 'in the next few years.' He joins a string of other top executives that have recently sounded the alarm about AI's impact in the workplace. Economists say there aren't yet strong signs that AI is driving widespread layoffs across industries. But there is evidence that workers across the United States are increasingly using AI in their jobs and the technology is starting to transform some roles such as computer programming, marketing and customer service. At the same time, CEOs are under pressure to show they are embracing new technology and getting results - incentivizing attention-grabbing predictions that can create additional uncertainty for workers. 'It's a message to shareholders and board members as much as it is to employees,' Molly Kinder, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies the impact of AI, said of the CEO announcements, noting that when one company makes a bold AI statement, others typically follow. 'You're projecting that you're out in the future, that you're embracing and adopting this so much that the footprint [of your company] will look different.' Some CEOs fear they could be ousted from their job within two years if they don't deliver measurable AI-driven business gains, a Harris Poll survey conducted for software company Dataiku showed. Tech leaders have sounded some of the loudest warnings - in line with their interest in promoting AI's power. At the same time, the industry has been shedding workers the last few years after big hiring sprees during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. At Amazon, Jassy told the company's workers that AI would in 'the next few years' reduce some corporate roles like customer service representatives and software developers, but also change work for those in the company's warehouses. IBM, which recently announced job cuts, said it replaced a couple hundred human resource workers with AI 'agents' for repetitive tasks such as onboarding and scheduling interviews. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested on Joe Rogan's podcast that the company is building AI that might be able to do what some human workers do by the end of the year. 'We, at Meta as well as the other companies working on this, are going to have an AI that can effectively be sort of a mid-level engineer at your company,' Zuckerberg said. 'Over time we'll get to the point where a lot of the code in our apps … is actually going to be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers.' Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, maker of the chatbot Claude, boldly predicted last month that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs may be eliminated by AI within five years. Leaders in other sectors have also chimed in. Marianne Lake, JPMorgan's CEO of consumer and community banking, told an investor meeting last month that AI could help the bank cut headcount in operations and account services by 10 percent. The CEO of BT Group Allison Kirkby suggested that advances in AI would mean deeper cuts at the British telecom company. Even CEOs who reject the idea of AI replacing humans on a massive scale are warning workers to prepare for disruption. Jensen Huang, CEO of AI chip designer Nvidia said last month, 'You're not going to lose your job to an AI, but you're going to lose your job to someone who uses AI.' Google CEO Sundar Pichai said at Bloomberg's tech conference this month that AI will help engineers be more productive but that his company would still add more human engineers to its team. Meanwhile, Microsoft is planning more layoffs amid heavy investment in AI, Bloomberg reported this week. Other tech leaders at Shopify, Duolingo and Box have told workers they are now required to use AI at their jobs, and some will monitor usage as part of performance reviews. Some companies have indicated that AI could slow hiring. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff recently called Amodei's prognosis 'alarmist' on an earnings call, but on the same call chief operating and financial officer Robin Washington said that an AI agent has helped to reduce hiring needs and bring $50 million in savings. Despite corporate leaders' warnings, economists don't yet see broad signs that AI is driving humans out of work. 'We have little evidence of layoffs so far,' said Columbia Business School professor Laura Veldkamp, whose research explores how companies' use of AI affects the economy. 'What I'd look for are new entrants with an AI-intensive business model, entering and putting the existing firms out of business.' Some researchers suggest there is evidence AI is playing a role in the drop in openings for some specific jobs, like computer programming, where AI tools that generate code have become standard. Google's Pichai said last year that more than a quarter of new code at the company was initially suggested by AI. Many other workers are increasingly turning to AI tools, for everything from creating marketing campaigns to helping with research - with or without company guidance. The percentage of American employees who use AI daily has doubled in the last year to 8 percent, according to a Gallup poll released this week. Those using it at least a few times a week jumped from 12 percent to 19 percent. Some AI researchers say the poll may not actually reflect the total number of workers using AI as many may use it without disclosing it. 'I would suspect the numbers are actually higher,' said Ethan Mollick, co-director of Wharton School of Business' generative AI Labs, because some workers avoid disclosing AI usage, worried they would be seen as less capable or breaching corporate policy. Only 30 percent of respondents to the Gallup survey said that their company had general guidelines or formal policies for using AI. OpenAI's ChatGPT, one of the most popular chatbots, has more than 500 million weekly users around the globe, the company has said. It is still unclear what benefits companies are reaping from employees' use of AI, said Arvind Karunakaran, a faculty member of Stanford University's Center for Work, Technology, and Organization. 'Usage does not necessarily translate into value,' he said. 'Is it just increasing productivity in terms of people doing the same task quicker or are people now doing more high value tasks as a result?' Lynda Gratton, a professor at London Business School, said predictions of huge productivity gains from AI remain unproven. 'Right now, the technology companies are predicting there will be a 30% productivity gain. We haven't yet experienced that, and it's not clear if that gain would come from cost reduction … or because humans are more productive.' The pace of AI adoption is expected to accelerate even further if more companies use advanced tools such as AI agents and they deliver on their promise of automating work, Mollick said. AI labs are hoping to prove their agents are reliable within the next year or so, which will be a bigger disrupter to jobs, he said. While the debate continues over whether AI will eliminate or create jobs, Mollick said 'the truth is probably somewhere in between.' 'A wave of disruption is going to happen,' he said. Related Content 3-pound puppy left in trash is rescued, now thriving How to meet street cats around the world 'Jaws' made people fear sharks. 50 years later, can it help save them?
