Palantir CEO Alex Karp: AI Fears, Rise of the Far Right & Germany's Crisis

Without AI systems, Russia would have won. Europe is already completely existing because of these technologies. Europe, as we know it now with all its problems, would not exist without these technologies being used actively. We're Mordy Ix. We are sitting here in the mid of the mountains of Idaho near St. Belly in your beautiful house. I remember very well when we met for the first time. It was in 2003. It was at a party in South of France. And somebody introduced you to me, preparing me by saying Alex Carp is a super interesting guy. He studied at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Young Habama was his professor. He's an intellectual. Unfortunately, he has no job, penny less, but an interesting guy. We met. We go along very well. And I have been feeling this as a guy who is rather on the left side of the political spectrum. Very intellectual personality cares a lot about the state of democracy, about individual rights. And today, this guy has launched one of the most successful companies of recent business in history, Palantir. Marketcap currently north of 300 billion. And certainly people are describing you like a kind of Dathbatter, a sinister figure of far right wing ideologies and almost like a warmunder. Please tell me what happened. Did you change? Well, first of all, the Palantir thing is, Palantir has a hundred more ex-fans than people who describe me. My personal experience, including in Germany, including and especially in Germany is, you, the media version, I'll get to that, is, yeah, something like, you know, bringing war to peace times or something. But the actual rational human being on the street is a Palantir fan. Part of our success, there's the product side, which we could talk about. But there's also, like, this way, every single person in Silicon Valley who finances things would cut off their right arm to have the fans we have. And you're left arm. So, but there's many, many things in your question. And I remember meeting you two and thinking, oh, this is a really interesting person. And, you know, well, how does somebody who studies music end up running? What, I mean, for those who are not in the German speaking world, it's funny outside of the German speaking world, people do not understand the impact of Axel Springer. And which Axel Springer for lag, which you, it's, you know, it's easy to say you run, but it's different. You know, in Germany, there really are that many. I can't think of any other eigentumor or someone who owns a significant stake in the company that's also running it. So, it's very, very unusual setup. It's more similar to America, but then we don't have essentially a second generation business run by an owner. So, even in America, that the whole setup is very, very unusual. And then, you know, yeah, I mean, what I think bound us together from beginning is, you're, you're a, it doesn't translate well to English, but a music scientist. So, we don't really have science and music. I guess in America, but it sounds kind of fake, even though I'm sure there is a faculty of that. But in any case, that's a very unusual setup on your end. Yeah, we are both outsiders. That's absolutely true. And we both are polarizing. That's also fair to say. I just tried to get it. Why a person that I met almost a quarter of a century ago, and whom I've met during that time, very regularly. And I did not observe any change in your worldview or in your personality. Now, the description of you, the outside picture of you is in shop contrast. Well, I get the origin. Let me ask the question. It's exactly framing. But I still want to push back on the, there's almost no one else in tech, maybe one or two that were who has anything like the fans I have. So, there's this, both the outside kind of, I would say, especially in your much less so here, version of me, Palinjeer, Peter, which is exactly what you described. But I just want to also highlight the dynamic that these people also create fans. Like whenever I do something, I'm basically only talk to Germany through you now. And I get hate, but I would say a hundred times more fans writing, hey, could you please thank you for helping Germany, especially young people who are one of do things in Germany as an example. So, anyways, but let me get to let me answer your question directly without the caveat. But I do think there's a European and American difference here, but our products, PG, change the course of history by reducing, basically. I mean, there have been minor terror attacks and terror attacks can always happen. But since we launched the product, you, it has stopped hundreds and hundreds of terror attacks. But Alex, what do you then simply describe the mission of Palinjeer? What do you think Palinjeer is doing to society? What is the mission in order to help people to decide whether they should feed the fans or actors? Well, again, let me just answer that. I'm trying to get to the question asking, which is a really deep question. Why would people want to portray us so inaccurately? This is my version of the question, and I think there's a functional reason for that. And the function starts really twofold. And here I'm going to use Europe as an example. One, the products worked too well, so people can afford it. The terror attacks in Europe have basically been reduced to something that's not something people are afraid of. Even though there are way too many attacks on the streets, especially of Germany, but people view that as an immigration problem, not as a terror problem, right or wrong. And two, our products play a significant role in Ukraine. So Russia and Russia doesn't appear to be winning. So I think the setup to answer the Palinjeer attack thing, especially in Europe, you also have to say, why can Europe, why does Europe believe they can afford to attack Palinjeer? And I'm telling you, the primary reason is, and this is a Palinjeer problem, our products were well, we're powerful enough that people believe they can afford it, which is again, okay. So then what it, what it, and so like, so then you're, so that's, I think the backdrop, then why would you want to perceive us that way? And then I do think there's a Europe and an American difference, and it basically comes down to America is hypercharging AI and tech and has these phenomenal and that that's where I do think the reason why you're kind of a bridge between American Europe, there are lots of reasons for one of them is you look like more like an American business person like you own the company, this have been, like that's a banality, but it's also true. And if you are saying like essentially just take a neutral example, American businesses versus European businesses, American businesses believe they're at war all the time. So if you show up with a product that is demonstrably better on all scores in America and in Europe, you're going to have a very different reception in America, it's going to, it's not going to be, I like or do not like the person, although most European American businesses love Palinjeer. But it's going to be, how does it work? Why does it work? Does it transform my business? Does the technology work? Is the technology stealing my IP? And in Europe, you can't really afford to ask these questions or, or they're not being asked correctly because the answer to the question will be some significant part of that infrastructure is going to have to be imported from America. I mean, you, you have described me many times that your main goal, your mission is to protect democracy. And that's what you're doing, I think quite efficiently. Nevertheless, the debate in Europe is mainly these guys are collaborating with the American secret service. That's bad, that's dangerous. What do we get wrong? I mean, to work with the secret service of democracy and to protect democracy, I think is a good thing. But why is that procedure problematic? Yeah, it's boycotting Palinjeer and portray you as a force of evil, although you are obviously on the side of democracies. But nobody sees it that way outside of you. I mean, we have a pretty good sense of why it's pretentive. And at the point I would say to, especially Germany where I care is, is that really the white sense, is that that is, I think that's way downstream of very bad decision making. So they perceive Palinjeer, by the way, again, I really, really deeply believe that they here are the professional media, left of center politicians, people who equate Peter and me with an old version of Germany, which they do not want. And that the vast majority of Germans, the vast majority of Germans would prefer a world where the decision making was rational enough so you could evaluate Palinjeer and rational way. That's what I believe. Are you wrong? But let me just get to the, but the technical point that I think is very important is the decision making is objectively wrong. From the perspective of how would you protect the data? You need an application layer. And so the crazy thing about what's happening in Europe is we have the only industrial user application layer in the world, that application layer protects your data from being essentially abused by large, large, which many model providers. So what you have in Europe are technically illiterate bureaucrats that in the name of protecting their people from a company they don't like because they don't like basically what Peter and I represent, which in my view is actually old school European values. Old school European values mean the products are the best in the world and they actually are morally superior because of the competence involved in every single of our products is like that. Those products cannot touch. So you're framing it as a moral thing. I'm saying the moral thing is way down stream of the competence problem. And if you were to solve the, if you want to solve the competence problem in tech in Europe, which is the bigger problem, Europe is not a relevant market for power chair, except for that I care. But the main accusation is data surveillance. Palateur is a form of espionage and the most aggressive term was your techno fascists. You are rather on the side of data serbans or you rather on the side of-- Well, first of all, the key protection. The most interesting, like fascinating thing if it wasn't said and very, very Taoish is the products we provide, PG, which is what she used in the police forces and intel services in Europe. Foundry, ontology, which is used in the Ukraine, and ontology is essentially a application layer. These products are the products you will need and the only ones available at scale that I'm aware of to stop what people mean by serbans. What do we mean by ser-- What should Europe mean by serbans? What it should mean is the IP, the indigenous know-how that still powers Europe gets migrated to a different company, a company that's not European, that is no interest in Europe, that is not going to protect you, the rights, meaning you're right to privacy, you're right to that data being purged. Also, you're right to have-- I mean, in Europe, one of the things I've always embraced is in America, we have rights that are basically moral rights in Europe, you have economic rights, and they're intertwined, which is always the vexing discussion. So the vexing discussion between America and Europe is, from the American perspective, you don't connect rights enough vis-a-vis government. So, new European country has anything like a first or second amendment. That's vexing. And the fourth amendment in Europe is probably the closest-- in America's closest to what you have, meaning the right to privacy. But even there, without going into technical details, we have widely divergent ideas of how to do that, basic. And so, and then the vexing thing from a European perspective is Americans have all these rights vis-a-vis the government. But you have no right to protection vis-a-vis companies. And there are basically, you have a right to succeed or fail here, you don't have a right to economic justice. I mean, that's maybe something people want politically, but in the Constitution, that is not enshrined. So, you have a completely different idea of rights. I actually am a classic progressive. I'm more-- I'm still American in that. I like my first, second, and fourth amendment, but I would like to see a better treatment for poor. OK, so-- Would still describe yourself as a progressive, correct? Oh, I would describe myself as one of the few last standing actual progressives in that I believe-- well, first of all, I'm willing to defend the rights of someone I don't like. OK, that somehow is gone. And again, it's particularly gone in Europe. Like, they frame this as I don't like you. How is that relevant? Why do we moralize everything also? If it is about Germans who have been very successful in America in the Silicon Valley, Peter T. Tobielitke, Schindler, Philip Schindler. So, there are a couple of Germans who are impressive careers in the Silicon Valley. And we in Europe and in Germany do so far not really take advantage of it. But first, we moralize. We say, well, there must be something-- Well, there's a difference in-- I mean, as a generalization, Germany is a very Lutheran culture, and we're a Calvinist culture. So, like, we equate success with being-- Swiss or Calvinist, the Dutch or Calvinist. But as a generalization, I would say, Europe in general. And Germany, obviously, in particular, is a Lutheran culture where Lutheran culture tends to view massive success you've acquired during your lifetime with great skepticism. Calvinist-- we're like peak Calvinism. Maybe we even take it too far where we ascribe financial success to moral success. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The way I tend to want to frame the question is, but the excess in Europe and moralizing is clearly, in my view, downstream from not wanting to solve the problems. And then, and I think, Palantir is an archetypical example. You can say, basically, against all technical evidence that Palantir or techno fascists, what would that mean? And that we're engaged in surveillance when our products are actually the ones that stop that. Or you can ask the more serious question, what has gone wrong in our culture that we have no other application there that would allow us to do this? Probably the most impactful and successful German of recent decades is Peter T. You're knowing well. He was the co-founder of Palantir. You see an anti-democrat? You see a religious fanatic? Go to-- no, I mean-- so actually, the way I would reframe the beginning of the question is, I think my treatment in Germany is-- it's not what it should be, but it's honestly given how much money I've made. Fair than you could think. I think the treatment of Peter is atrocious. Why? Well, first of all, again, it's one of the things I really-- you're-- I would start with, again, and it's a very German concept. See, again, I think what is happening-- what scares me a lot in Germany is it's an importation of a version of America on top of German ideals that are kind of-- are attenuated. And so the real question to ask is, I think the question historically one would have asked in Germany is, can we afford this? Can we afford not to learn from this person? And I think that's the right question Germany's ask. Well, so-- Make a point and could say, well, it depends on where the person stands with regard to values. So if somebody is intrinsically anti-democratic or has a leaning towards a thought of her-- First of all, I think-- That's a different thing than this person I think should not be used to not be a role model. The question is here. Is it misunderstanding or progress or is there a point? No, no. First of all, it is a misunderstanding, it's not true. But I'm going to push back on that. I don't-- I am reading books on Deng Xiaoping. I read a book on-- I'm reading books on Mao. I've read a lot of books on-- I'm learning a lot from Mao and Deng Xiaoping. I don't agree with Mao on anything. So I don't believe anyone can afford not to learn. And if you're in a very bad situation, let's just take an obvious example, the German texting. The German texting should be the number two in the world by any historical standard. Honestly, the German texting was the number one in the world. So number two is already like maybe shouldn't be the aspiration. It's on no one's list. You're one of the more successful investors in Germany. You know that you probably know successful companies in Germany. But the most largest company in Germany by market cap, I think is Siemens, and Palantir is significantly larger, even where we're obviously undervalued. So currently. So my first cut-- and you see this in this cut-- like where you and I have been friends. And we actually agree on the moral stuff. Pretty much one to one-- pro-democracy. What does democracy mean? Pro-data-projection, alignment with the West. We should have an alliance that is those of us who don't agree that a line should be Western Europe, America, the Five Eyes, and Israel, and Japan, and Korea. So we agree on those things. And many other things, almost decong-scalace, meaning with almost-- but where I think there is distance would be my approach, which is the first question I would ask is, can Germany afford not to learn from Peter? Even if all those things were true. Now, you're right. It should be clarified. I've known Peter since we were poor students at Stanford. We had conversations as just poor students fighting about intellectual things. He was always heterodox, right? I was always heterodox left. I don't think much has changed. He's still heterodox, right? Meaning he's very frustrating to classic Republicans. He's never been a Neocon, like a lot of the thing. He actually does not really believe in classic-- Republican economic theory. He was the first person to flag, and we'll always flag. like in conversations you tend to have people on the right, basically explaining all problems as the result of capitalism not being driven far enough, that's just not Peter's view. He's not a simplistic or a character to think you're on the right, meaning, and he's definitely not the caricature that the left wants to present, but what's fascinating to me is why is it so important to spend so much time blocking Peter from the German market? Forget Palantir. Like, forget, it's not like I want to help Germany because I care about Europe and because I have a, I mean, because of historical family and also I just felt at home in Germany for a long time. But for me, that's because like, let me just reframe the moral thing. It's so obviously thin what they're saying about him, what they say about Palantir. So obviously doesn't make sense on the merits. You only need 10 minutes, five minutes on Google to see this isn't true. Why do people want to and need to believe that truth was the question that I believe? And by the way, it's not that different. I mean, you're talking about Peter and me. I could ask you the same question. Like I've known you for not as long as I've known Peter, but and you were very successful before I was. I mean, I don't, the German non-German audience may not realize how Axel Springer is discussed. Okay. There, I think there are very important political figures in Germany without naming names that see no difference between you and the right side of the off day. Kids absurd. I, I believe most of my left wing friends in Germany think Axel Springer wakes up in the morning and tries to make the world worse and goes to bed with a smile when the world is worse. This, I've a signature. What does you take actually on the rise of the IFT in Germany as somebody who has studied German, he speaks German, gas very much about the well being of the country we see now. This kind of polarization of society, the very left and the far right are on the rise and the IFT. What is it for you? Is it a normal party or is it? I think the IFT is very complex and I'm not reading all the news all the time. I give you, I think, first of all, the rise of the extreme parties was super predictable and I may have been talking, shouting about this for the last 10 years. If you're going to bring in a doing wide square, very deep enlarge migration into Germany without the buy-in of the German people and what without an honest discussion of the consequences. Again, I understand why this is hard to do in Germany and it's completely about history, which if my family hadn't left Germany, I would be a lampshade. They left before the Holocaust. Everybody understands that and is sympathetic, but you have in Europe, but especially in Germany, just in an impossibly difficult, painful inability to talk about obvious facts. The average person on the street is living with these facts. So, what do you think about the IFT? No, not in your brain against Russia. The IFT is asking Ukraine and just recently one of the leaders said, "We have to force Ukraine at the table to negotiate with Russia." That is turning history and perpetrator and I totally agree with you. You're starting with the moral thing. The question you asked is, "Why are they an ascendancy?" They're much stronger than they appear because I have friends who five years ago were telling me they would never vote for the IFT. Who are voting for the IFT? People who are social democrats. When the IFT is polling at 40%, there's another 10 points above that that would vote for them if they weren't the IFT. Honestly, I think the IFT is just the consequence of a weak leadership in the centre of political spectrum, but that does not necessarily mean that that disruption is done by a force, by a political force that has a concept that will be. Will a good for German? I personally think that the IFT is just not an alternative because it is intrinsically in large parts of the party, pro-Russia, pro-China, even with a certain tolerance to. I mean, I have military forces in the Middle East. It is in large parts intrinsically anti-capitalist. It is in large parts anti-American. Just recently we heard that Germany is divided in two parts. We have East Germany. We are the German Germans and then we have West Germany. We are the American Germans. Okay. So this is just not an alternative and I just would like to ask you. You're because some people are accusing Peter or you, like you have a certain leaning or understanding for that. No, no, no. Try to clarify. Well, this is again, I basically agree with everything you said, but the point I would push back on is I have a deep understanding for why they're succeeding. So it's like I would not vote for the IFT if I were able to vote and we're voting in Germany. But that's different from I think part of the reason they're successful is that first of all, no one actually believes. Let's just say the parties, the classic parties are actually going to take migration seriously, but no one believes they're going to do it. So you get people voting for the IFT basically because you know it's a protest vote and you know your Germans and people who care about Germany like me have been screaming and been right and no one listens. And not only does no one listen and you are a great example of this. You are honestly pretty left wing on most issues as far as I can tell and I've known you for 20 years. And you're kind of classically, if I would describe you, classically left leaning person who's a little bit more blood into the capital narrative than I am. That's how I describe it. If I would describe you, it's okay. You get pilloried and you tell everybody, against the IFT a guide news, you have no sympathy for anyone who's pro-Russia. I mean, like you believe for that. Like we're on the front line. We're voting. We should always clarify we have nothing against the Russians. We have nothing against the Chinese. But we have a lot of. I'm not just getting very leadership. I'm a Tai Chi. I'm an expert in one of the four great treasures in China. I'm reading all these things. I have a deep appreciation of Russian culture, Russian math. So we agree on that. But shorthand, if I were to say what I think motivates you after watching you for 20 years, is you are deeply pro-democratic. You're kind of progressive on most issues, except for you do not like. You don't want anything that's stupid, it won't work. And if I had to say where you're kind of a zealot, it's on the, you know, anti-pudent, anti-China stuff, and actually on no tolerance for anti-Semitism. So that's your. Those are your positions. Those positions are. I mean, they're solidly mainstream. And I can tell people who are listening and want to hear this. Like even in private discussions, they're like, I much more on like, yeah, I want to understand why. Of course, I'm not going to. I'm not interested in voting for them, but I understand why. I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, but I'm not interested in voting for them, which is not like me very much. It's not like me very much. The debate is different. Europe is partly not skeptical of AI because you are not, like for example, take the power to your example. We are the only product available that makes AI useful on the battlefield and safe and useful and safe and commercial. It's very hard to discuss AI. When what they mean are largely companies being slightly unfair that would not be able to compete in America. So you're talking about AI light. But the thing is- But let's talk also about the opportunity. We get it and we agree that Germany has not delivered Europe has not delivered. Sorry, what can we do now? Let me just finish this. It did nothing's going to work before the chancellor gets up and says, we have a crisis because to fix the problem again, who's going to fix the problem? The problem is you are going to have to bring in a Tobias or a Schindler or a Teal as in a very significant role. You can't rebuild with people who have never done this before. Then who's going to build under what conditions? What are the working conditions? How do you bring the whole society along? How much can someone work per day? Tech works because people work are dedicated, like doggedly dedicated around the clock for years. And by the way, if somebody doesn't belong on the team, you can move them out of the team or out of the company. By the way, for tech people, again, I'm wildly, I think people I got along with best when I was on boards in Germany were the union. So I'm not saying, but you don't need worker protection for someone who isn't a software engineer that could work at LLM. But to get this to work, you have to have someone saying, this is a crisis. I think you're also going to have to say, this is an economic zone. We are going to create an economic zone in Germany. And in that economic zone, competition is going to look exactly like it looks in America or it doesn't China or doesn't Israel. Why not people in America more afraid of things? I then in Europe at the moment, do they know more? Is it? Well, first of all, yeah, I mean, really, honestly, yes. And so like again, I do think the fear is appropriate. Of course, it's a, these are, it's like the simple metaphor that is simple, but works is the large language models are like uranium. Okay. You can use it for a good cause or for a bad cause. No, they have to be processed. And in the processing, they become, first of all, just touching them probably is not a good idea. But so using them like again, yeah, but if you use the metaphor uranium, I think it's very appropriate because you can use it for bad or for good causes. And here, again, people start to have a moral discussion or, well, it's good or bad instead of saying, let's make sure that we use it for good causes. I mean, it's again, there is this comparison to knife. You can use a knife in order to prepare food and you can use a knife in order to kill people. So we should not, yeah, but it's both true. And again, this is why I think these things are actually economic and technical first. It is you have to understand what the technologies do. You have to have people who are working natively with these technologies. And those people have to be involved. And again, here it's like, you basically have different parts of the stack. You have the GPU part of the stack. So that's tips. You have essentially, you're in an enterprise, you can have a data integration part of the stack. You can do that by hand. If you want civil liberties, you're going to, we do that. You have an application part of the stat. So entology, what does it mean? How does it mean? How does it exploit? How does it safely deploy? How do you process? Have to use and you have the large language models, both close and open models. And the closed and open models have different advantages to world here. To have a tech scene in Europe, you need world leading components in all those parts. That's not realistic. So you're going to have to figure out which components are actually the ones that could advance European industry, European sovereignty. The sovereignty issue is a completely technical issue. And in, it's not just Germany, honestly. What's really happening in Europe is you have bureaucrats whose primary idea is how do I protect the market against American companies? And everything else is downstream. Let me try to twist it towards an opportunity. If this kind of anti-I sentiment is ongoing in America, I fear that America could see an election campaign where the two parties are basically competing in order to explain that their party is protecting their people better against AI. I think that's a very dangerous case, but that's what's happening that has already started. So if that's ongoing and every kind of new data center is a big issue and raises a lot of protest and so on, wouldn't that be an opportunity to take you to Europe? And so you're welcome to build the data center here. I'm more German than you. I'm just going to put that out there. You're playing the American. I'm playing it. Okay, of course it's an opportunity, but it's only an opportunity if it's technically credible. So if you ask me, I'm in charge of Germany, or in charge of France, or some great nation, you have to say, first we have a crisis. We are going to get the best people in the world to come. We are going to call the best people in the world to say, what would stop you from, by the way, I told, I haven't told this to this chancellor, but I've literally told directly or indirectly to every chancellor and every important politician that you can think of for the last 10, 15 years, you got to do what Israel does, China does, what America would do, what we did after World War II. Like we built our industry on German scientists. Like it's like, and the people who built the bomb, like when we built the bomb, like Einstein writes the president, the massive opportunity begins with, I know we have a problem that is dangerous for the present and future of our society and has to be solved. There's only a political leader in Europe has to make that statement. It would be best if that was Germany for the leaving all of our emotional attachments to Germany, simply because Germany once had the best vaccine and still is the driving economic motor of Europe and there is no Europe without Germany. Okay, but then sorry, let me just then the question is, you're going to have to bring those people over and they are going to have to be the ones distributing the capital, hiring the people, saying how you do this. Of course, what happens is the local people, I mean Germany has more talent and France is the same thing than any other country per square. Okay, those people learn how to do it and then build their things themselves. And that's, and by the way, another thing, it's talent, not money. It's like it is part of the problem. Let me give you a different version. Part of the reason it's hard to do the optimistic thing is every day Europe makes another decision that makes it harder to fix the problem. Okay, Alex, I agree absolutely on the opportunity and on the necessity to bring back to Germany the best talent. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who made their careers, who know how things are working and who still feel a certain degree of patriotism or in any case one that Europe and that Germany succeed. So let's bring them back. Let's take advantage of them or let's use them where they are. We agree on that. But a fundamental for that would be that people believe in the opportunity and believe in the necessity to embrace AI to be at the forefront of these developments. Could you briefly explain why AI is more of an opportunity than a threat if you think if you think I mean again, it's I'm just going to start in the battlefield is not where you want me to start maybe. But without AI systems, Russia would have won. And by the way, without pre AI but things that can almost do that, you the parties that you know, you're very focused on would be running Europe because you would have terror attacks that are rampant. So Europe is already completely existing because of these technologies that Europe, as we know it now with all its problems would not exist without these technologies being used actively. So that's like the baseline. Then you get to okay, Germany has now has to compete with China. And to do that is going to have to rebuild how it builds cars how it processes chemicals how it re changes its historically dominant industries into industries that can compete against America and China. And it has a limited workforce and in migration is failing. Okay, how would you get how would you raise GDP where you have very strict laws with some of which may have to change? You have energy things which probably will change what's going to take a long time where migration has not worked. There is only one technology that can do this. And by the way, I tend to think these things should be always asked and answered in the empirical. There are two in a half countries that are embracing these technologies. America, which has GDP growth. In fact, part of the problem we have politically is it works almost too well. It's just not widely issued. China seems to be working in Israel seems to be working. Where have people not embraced these technologies? But again, if you just start with the core problem Germany has, it's an export culture. Its products have to be better than everyone else's or no one's going to buy them. You can basically ask Germans, do you think your products are going to be responsible for your economic health, bolstend, or is it going to be your diplomatic service that's going to deliver that? You're going to rely on German popularity. I tend to think the opportunity is that if you want to succeed and thrive, there's only one set of technologies that can do this. How are you going to rebuild your car industry? So it's as good as China's. Just start there. People are doing that. We have partners. How are you going to rebuild these industries so you can compete and win? There is no other way. I think we are living in one of the most exciting times of civilization. There is so much change. There is so much progress. There is progress on so many levels in highest and accelerated speed. It is the case for space. It is the case for health. It is the case for computing and robotics. It is the case also for defense. Unfortunately, we need that. So my question is, although we are at the eve of an incredible accelerated productivity gain, and potentially a better form of living in civilization, I really see that opportunity. Nevertheless, it is one of the most skeptical times. There is a lot of fear. There is a lot of anger. How do you explain that? Is it simply the speed of change? Well, it's too much. Now let me just focus on America. I think. And by the way, that is not a European origin. No, no, no. That is to question us wrong. It is arguably bigger problem here. This is where I do think America might have. I think, okay, Europe has an obvious tech problem with political consequences that are really bad. America has a more of a political problem where left, far left, far right of just like, it's more hurt the people are successful than any solution. And they're very serious about that. And the idea they couldn't win is not true, unfortunately. The central framing I'm skeptical of here with people I agree with, probably you, and definitely people in my tech world. It's always like, this is going to be a bastion of plethora of good things that everyone's going to profit from. And there are no dangers. I'm not saying you say this, but it is a commonly held view. And the tech people want everyone to like just stand up and say that. And I think that is not credible. But what I think is actually just like the overselling of AI in this country is really, really, somewhat disconcerting, but it's also depressing because you don't have to do it. This is a natural resource that is net net, excruciatingly valuable for the betterment of humanity. But it does have some negative externalities. First of all, we don't know where it's going to go. It's these things are not deployable without processing engines, application layers, ontology, etc. It, and the biggest problem in this country is it does, while it will raise the standard of living of the average person, the people involved are like, they get 10, 100 times wealthier than they already are. That's a problem for society. Like, you know, the way I try to explain to my Silicon Valley colleagues is, do you think that the wealth, I mean, if we go back to history, then innovation and new technologies have always led to growth, to prosperity and to an improvement of the standard of living of all people, particularly of the lower income classes. That has started centuries ago. It was true. When the wheel was invented, it was true. When the steam engine was invented, it was true. When computers were invented, it has, in the end, if we draw a line, contributed to the well-being of people and it has improved the shape of society. Nevertheless, at the beginning, there's always the concern, the steam engine is going to destroy. Let me just, sorry, jobs. We are always afraid. So my point is, do you think that I just know different than I was born first? Let me give you a different the answer that I think sums up a lot of the problems in Europe and America. This is a new playbook. Like, there is no playbook. Like, why am I doing so well? Because this is a neurodiversion age. And the people had skills. So this is a different revolution. And even if that is true, and let's assume it is that everybody will do well, I think that's not, I think most people will do better. You think society is going to divide into a very fuel with a credible wealth? The mass that has nothing to do. No, no, no, I'm not saying that. Again, I think that's like that's kind of the, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying most people who are middle and middle and middle class will do better. Everybody, people who are willing to change their jobs are likely to do better, but not everyone. But that's not the real political problem. We have a political problem in this country, not a tech problem. In past revolutions, the person at the bottom, maybe they're salary doubled. And the person at the top became five times wealthier. But like it was very unusual to be a billionaire 40 years ago. You now have a revolution where I could become 20 times wealthier than I am now. And the person who was working out here could become, they could have their salary could go over, certainly could go up significantly by any normal standard. Over a period of 10 years, go up 50% or double. Okay. When you have a complete decoupling of like unimaginable wealth and normal and that unimaginable wealth, and then this is where we're not really allowed to say this, but it's done by people that you don't really relate to. Like these are like very oddly shaped IQ specimens that you know, you probably wouldn't want to have over for dinner. And if they were over dinner, you have nothing to talk to them about. And by the way, vice versa. And you know, and then our whole fabric is not like, I got screened at for like, first of all, it wasn't a draft. It was like we should have some kind of service. By the way, by that, I meant hospital, taking care of old people. Our fabric of our societies already strained. Wealthy people, it's not like in the 50s and 60s where people actually knew each other went to the same schools. We're already totally separate societies. Right? If basically is, I mean, it's inflammatory, but we already live in a separate but not equal society. And then you hypercharge it with like extreme economic wealth, but like egregiously extreme, while everybody else is kind of growing. And even if it's not true, people are afraid, even if it is true that most people raise, the actual fear people have is, I'm going to lose my job. No, that fear, even if it's not true, the people running the lab companies who are the leaders told you it's true. They're telling you your life is going to suck. And they're also getting very wealthy. And you don't find them very likable. And people who used to be on the winning side of history are now suddenly very much afraid that they would lose their job. I traveled to the Silicon Valley three times over the last few weeks and the level of nervousness is really surprising. A lot of people think we have only six months until our jobs are going to be gone. And that is the tech community. That is developers. And they work day and night in order to reinvent themselves. Because they are afraid that in a few months. And again, I have no income. And then the political version that scares me a lot. And I do think that I'm yelling at everyone in Silicon Valley and private and on public. I've been a Democrat. Despite what you may be reading about me most of my life, I'm still a 70s progressive, which is actually a real progressive. Meaning I want to help the poor. I just don't want to burn the rich. The Silicon Valley line basically is, don't believe you're lying eyes. Okay. This doesn't work politically. By the way, it's the same problem Germany and Europe have about all these issues. And if you tell people, don't believe you're lying eyes, you know what they do? They protest vote. That's what happens. And they protest vote. Because what they're really saying is you are telling me not to believe everything I noted. By the way, also just overarching in Europe and in America, the political class is low legitimacy. So what you know, what your version of reality is, they're always lying to me. I don't know why they're lying. That's hard to figure out. But people believe they're always lying to me. And again, to just overly tie this in to annoyingly, why I'll give you a different version. Why is Palantir the most popular brand in the world? People always frame as the unpopular. We have for every time you read someone, we have a hundred times the fan. I'll tell you why we're the most popular brand in the world. And that's why they attack us often. We're the most popular brand in the world because I might be crazy. I am saying things you don't want to hear like the West's superior, national service, which means helping out old people. It doesn't mean no. In justry should be fully aligned with the country. We have to fight for these things. We have real adversaries. If we're not competent, we'll lose. These things, technologies are not perfect. And you have to listen to annoying people. And by the way, you can't blame everything on a country you hate, whatever, okay. And you know why we're so popular? Because everybody else is telling you, they're only trying to figure out what you wanna hear so they can, that's the felt version. And that's why when politicians in this country or anyone else say, hey, don't believe you're lying eyes on migration. Don't believe you're lying eyes on nuclear. Don't believe you're lying eyes on AI. They get up and they vote for people or like, screw these people, I'm gonna burn down my house. - What you are addressing is, I think, one of the most important topics it is trust. It is about trust, trust is lost. And trust has been lost in large parts of the political spectrum and the political scene. And trust has also been damaged with regard to media and their credibility. So we could have a long discussion about that. It would be super interesting, but we have to come to an end soon or later. I like to say that's why I would like to touch upon geopolitics. And here the arms race mainly in AI, but not only also in conventional military aspects between America and China, or perhaps even ideally between America and Europe on the one side and on the other side, China and Russia and Iran and other evil forces. How do you see that thing going to develop? - How is the chance that America is continuing to have the upper hand on AI and the developments? And how likely is it that China simply because there is no ethical limitation and there is more access to data of an incredibly large population that China is going to bring to Greece. - Let me reframe annoyingly as the universe that our moral standards, the advantage America has in Europe does have and I really hope and Ukraine proves. So it's very deep in the European history and can be really exposed is that solving the moral issue often uncovers a technical issue about which you're not aware. So again, Palantir is the data protection platform. It is the sovereign platform that drives our revenue. It is why Ukrainians did so well, why Israel against Iran overperformed, why America overformed. And then in tech, there is an advantage if you've actually been on the battlefield so that China has those, they're actually disadvantages. Access to data, I think actually honestly that might be roughly equal given significant collection. - On the battlefield. - China has for example, medical data of 700 million people. China has full, your child's parents see through complete surveillance with regard to behavioral data of people. I think that's a different quality because they're simply no democratic. - Again, we should have, that's a longer technical. And it depends, we mean biomeformatics, machinery or battlefield. Battlefield I would push back on that. And I would also, there's not the correlation between too much data can also be a problem. It really depends on their processing capabilities. Also, depending on whether Europe and America changes, the, there's a lot of complexity in that statement. It's both true and not true. It depends on the thing. I'll give you an advantage, I think China really does have, which is these technologies, pound chairs like 4,000 people, 4,200 or something, we're on every major battlefield. The reality is there are very big hardware projects that are still valuable. And if you look at Iran as opposed to Ukraine, heavy hardware, plane ships, other things, played a big role. Those things employ thousands, millions of people. They end up with a political constituency. One of the biggest problems we have in the West, the China's and have is these technologies are clearly the future combined with others, but you just are feeding fewer families. And so it's much harder for us to shift the budget to exactly where it should go. Whereas in a dictator like China, and also China's run by more in engineering class. So I think they, I would suspect they have a better, like if you, I'm pretty sure if you went to the Chinese level, like two levels below the person at the top and you did that in any European country, you would find somebody I could explain the technical issues to. I don't, I don't know that person is in Europe and it's harder in the West. So I think that that's the advantage. The disadvantage they have is one, people like you and me and the people that Europe can recruit really don't want to live in a country where they have no democratic rights or economic rights. Two, the actual, again, this is where I think the commercial and battlefield thing of American industries at battle. These things are not theoretical. And China, like America for, again, I've been against it. I'm not pro-war to speak with people think. But one of the advantages Ukraine, Israel, America has just quite frankly is we know a lot about work, what works, what doesn't, how it works, what products work, what products don't work. So I would say net, net, again, the chief political, the chief technological weakness we have in the West is kind of political, it's not technical. Okay, but if you had to take a bad null, would you rather bet that China is going to win the race in 10 years down the road or will the US keep going? Well, again, 10 years too far out, we don't know, that's impossible to answer because also, again, I think the chief problem we have is political. Like with China win, if you start banning the ability to procure, procure it, like, look, again, I'm not saying all the anti-pollution stuff is funded by your adversaries, but it's also funded by the adversaries. What is the best thing that can happen to Russia and China and Iran is you don't buy the things that work? So like that, these things, and you know who knows this? I mean, these people, again, they are excruciatingly intelligent and ruthless. And if they find out that in your local culture, they're people who view technology as witchcraft, you can bet your last dollar, they're going to fund those people. And you see this in America on all sorts of issues, you see at VisaVias everywhere, like the most in name things that actually kind of work, but you know, so it's like, does the West able to continue to produce these things? By the way, but again, I think Silicon Valley in this country and your people who think they're advocating for sovereignty in Europe are, you know, could really have to do a better job. And so, but if you asked, if we can mitigate that risk by being more honest and more frontal and more realistic, both in America and Europe about our strengths and weaknesses, we have a very good chance of winning, but it is very good chance like you can't, like just take the actual technical old things. The best open models in the world now are Chinese. That's a problem also because the close model, some of the close model providers are actually trying to monetize your data. And if you have China offering models that are where they're encouraging an application layer, like ours, interestingly, and you can control the weights, and that's why we did this whole thing with Nenvidia. But it's like the openings here for China are very, very real. And again, I'm just repeating myself, but if they can control the political apparatus because it's one tribe, one person, one gender, and we somehow can't do that, that's a problem. It likes the very last question of our conversation. We are living in the world where most of the centrist countries and their leadership is stumbling or weak, where populists and autocrats are on the rise. We are challenged by opportunities, and there is a lot of fear and anger. And at the time, time, a lot of opportunity, we have an incredibly unpredictable, geopolitical situation. Wars are part of daily reality. A couple of years down the road, do you think that what we're experiencing now, all these discussions, all these changes are the beginning of the end of the open society model. And we will have in five to 10 years a more autocratic world where strong men and autocrats are dominant, or do you rather think that what we're experiencing now is the healthy wake-up call, is the beginning of a reinvention, of a rejuvenation of the centrist, rules-based open society model. Well, thank you. That's a great way to end. Like when I'm saying China and our adversaries have an advantage in procurement because of very narrow selection, and what I'm trying to say is, we don't know the answer to this question, but we have to fight like hell to make sure we are not in societies where the crazy thing is, the functional allies of our adversaries now, who claim to want these progressive things, both actually far-right and far-left, which are actually structurally very similar, are helping to fight for structures that would not include anyone like them. So I want a society where it is the best people succeed, those people, every, the inputs are very, as equal as they can be, the outputs, depend on your aptitude, and discipline, and honestly, unfortunately, luck in other variables, where their rule of law is enforced. including if you do not like the person. So there's a right of free speech, whether you like the person or not, there's a right of privacy, whether you like the person or not. There's a right to put checks on the government, whether they like you or not, where we are able to do creative things and the people who do them get to keep some portion of the proceeds, but where those proceeds are distributed enough so that everybody feels like they're participating, that we have an idea of national order, but that's actually national, but progressive. Like, you get to be Swiss if you're Swiss, but you also believe that people who are Swiss have a valuable culture. You get to be American if you're, you know, the people who are working the hardest to destroy that, those concepts, and are the most effective in joinserian concepts, call themselves progressive, and they're not progressive, or they call themselves, you know, I don't know, super far right. They're not even right wing. Like, you know, one of the things I think is hilarious, on that score is, you know, I spend a lot of time in Germany talking to people who, you know, some of them regret it, some of them didn't regret their role in history and dark times. I think they would be very amused to know that people who've taken up their mantle on the right are mostly people of color, gay, and/or Jewish. So we've had some progress in our societies. (laughs) We now people on the far right are very diverse on all fronts. And, but people on the, and the people on the far left, I think, and the people I hung out with in the Frank Verdau School, which is a truly, was left to center where I was, but true progressives would be somewhat not amused to know that the actual philosophical background of most modern, actual non-progressive progressives not marked as titan. And they're not actually left-wing. They're actually asking for things that are classically right-wing. What are those things? They're asking for, we all get to be the same. We're all defined by who we are, by how we were born or what we impute ourselves to be. There are only rights for a sect of people, the a sect of people, the rights do not apply to people who are not like us because of wealth or because they think differently, and that we want a society that essentially looks communal and in a snow-weight. These are like prototypical, non-progressive, classically right-wing thoughts, just reapplied to people who called themselves progressive. And that's the society that, panel and chair and I, are effectively working against. By, by, how are we working against it? By making people, giving people more sovereignty, whether they believe it or not, giving people, protecting people from terrorism with civil liberties, by making businesses wealthier, better, where the business is keeping their actual alpha, by helping Ukraine, Israel and America establish a dominant position. That's actually helping. Alex, one of the most beautiful sentences of democracy is we agree to disagree. In that case, I have to say we agree. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. Take care. (upbeat music)