Free with a sign-in.
The best 19 min of 64
Palantir CEO Speaks Out on the Dangers of AI
Alex Karp argues Europe needs stronger political leadership and technical competence to use AI and defend democratic societies.
MMMD MEETS · Mathias Döpfner
- Alex Karp is CEO of Palantir.
The best minutes
- 35:33Europe needs political leadership and top tech talent to adopt AI6 min
- 41:57AI could raise living standards while widening wealth gaps6 min
- 51:19China’s AI edge depends on hardware and faster procurement7 min
Also worth watching
- 5:16Karp says Palantir has stopped hundreds of terror attacks3 min
- 8:56Palantir argues its software can protect data from AI misuse4 min
- 29:55Europe should choose the AI layers it can build competitively6 min
Skip the opening biography, the rights and Peter Thiel discussion, and the closing debate on political labels and open society.
Full analysis · 6 min read
Real Alpha · Nov 8
Karp says two and a half countries embrace AI
- Karp says two and a half countries embrace these technologies, while China and Israel seem to be working.
- His case links AI adoption to talent, procurement, and industrial competitiveness, but leaves key outcomes unverified.
- European buyers should test privacy controls and measure productivity before scaling sensitive systems.
Free with an account
Read the rest of the analysis
6 sections, the 6 other voices it tests Karp against, and what it means for you. Every episode we cut gets one.
Check your inbox
We sent a link to your address. Click it to finish signing up. Not there in a minute? Look in spam.
or
Signed up before? The same buttons sign you in. The episode, its moments and the transcript stay free.
Europe needs political leadership before AI scales
Karp locates Europe's AI deficit in leadership and technological competence, not a shortage of talent. At 36:01, he says a political leader must first name the problem.
His response goes beyond grants or startup subsidies. He wants experienced builders to direct capital, hiring, and working conditions, then help local teams learn.
For example, he proposes an economic zone where competition resembles America, China, or Israel. He also says he got along best with German unions.
Karp discusses long hours, moving people off teams, and worker protection. But he does not spell out how a special zone would reconcile those practices with broader protections.
“You have to say, first, we have a crisis.”
Our read
His diagnosis points to talent and authority, but leaves the special zone's rules undefined. For leaders, capacity means accountable operators and a concrete plan for local capability.
Europe must choose which AI layers it can build
At 34:34, Karp divides the stack into chips, data integration, applications, and models. He says Europe cannot lead every layer, so it must choose where to compete.
That makes the stack a procurement question, not simply a national label. For example, choosing a model vendor does not settle who controls integration, deployment, or model access.
Palantir sells an application layer, which Karp presents as protection from language-model providers. He says that layer can protect data from misuse, but offers no architecture or audit results here.
That makes the privacy case a proposition to verify, not proof supplied by this interview. Require data-access maps, deletion tests, and evidence about where information can travel.
Sagar Vaze on MTS in October says open weights let a German engineering company customize models around proprietary expertise. That offers another model strategy, but does not settle control of chips or enterprise data.
“The sovereignty issue is a completely technical issue.”
Our read
Karp makes control a technical question, but his own product is part of his answer. Buyers should compare architectures and verify controls rather than treat a company's origin as proof of privacy.
Palantir's battlefield case remains unverified here
Karp's battlefield example carries the episode's strongest causal assertion. He presents AI as decisive to the outcome in Ukraine.
Earlier, Karp said Palantir's product had stopped hundreds and hundreds of terror attacks. He provided no incident list or method for counting them in this exchange.
Döpfner raised the European objection that Palantir collaborates with the American Secret Service. Karp said some infrastructure would have to come from America, then defended the application layer as a data safeguard.
Those are separate claims, and neither gets tested with an architecture diagram, audit, or counterexample here. Palantir's software is used by police and intelligence services in Europe and in Ukraine.
A buyer can need battlefield capability and still impose strict privacy boundaries. The episode treats these aims as compatible but supplies assertion rather than independent deployment evidence.
“Without AI systems, Russia would have won.”
Our read
Karp's defense deserves scrutiny because security and civil liberties both matter. Buyers need measurable evidence of operational value and data protections, not a choice between accepting the product or abandoning AI.
AI adoption needs business evidence beyond defense
Karp's industrial case extends from defense to economic output. He says Germany must rebuild cars and chemicals to compete with China.
At 40:00, Karp says two and a half countries are embracing these technologies. He points to American GDP growth, while saying China and Israel seem to be working.
That count is an empirical pointer, not a comparative study of adoption or returns. The interview names industries but gives no plant-level productivity gains or implementation costs.
Rodney Zemmel on Inside Blackstone in October says he has never seen technology-led AI alone create business impact. He advises CEOs to choose one or two uses and pair business leaders with technologists.
Daron Acemoglu on The Mishal Husain Show in October offers a different priority, investing in AI that makes workers more productive. His point is to direct investment toward worker productivity, not only frontier ambitions.
“there's only one set of technologies that can do this.”
- RZRodney Zemmel · Inside Blackstone · Oct 13AI implementation needs business and technology leaders together
Daron Acemoglu · The Mishal Husain Show · Oct 30AI investment should focus on making workers more productive
Our read
The case for adoption is plausible, but incomplete without unit economics or workflow measures. Fund pilots against output, quality, and labor outcomes before treating AI spending as industrial renewal.
Karp expects broad gains but warns wealth may concentrate
Karp's account is neither pure abundance nor universal job loss. He says AI will raise the average person's living standard, and thinks most people will do better.
But he expects outsized gains to cluster among a very small group. The political risk is a widening gap alongside fears that ordinary workers will lose jobs.
As an example, he says a worker's salary could rise 50% or double over 10 years. He explicitly says not everyone will benefit.
Döpfner reports developers he met feared losing their jobs within six months. That is their fear as reported by the host, not a forecast Karp confirms.
Francis Foster on TRIGGERnometry in November links AI job concerns and data-center debate to political risk. The comparison shows why adoption can become a public-trust issue before job losses are measured.
“the people involved are likely to get 10, 100 times wealthier than they already are.”
Our read
The episode supports an unequal-gains risk, not a forecast that most workers will lose jobs. Boards can track productivity gains alongside who captures them and which roles change.
Karp says procurement could decide the AI race
The concrete constraint is political allocation, not simply model quality. Western defense technologies support fewer workers, Karp says at 54:25, making budget shifts harder.
That creates an awkward budget tradeoff. When new systems support fewer families, elected leaders face weaker local constituencies for moving funds.
Karp suspects China's engineering-led government can redirect resources faster than Western systems. But faster procurement alone does not establish which side has better models or battlefield performance.
Karp rejects a ten-year winner prediction as impossible to answer. At 57:24, he says the best open models in the world now are Chinese.
Nathan Lambert on a16z Podcast in October says Chinese labs match U.S. talent but lack compute. He also says distillation is difficult to apply to modern RL-heavy post-training.
Peter Thiel on MD MEETS in September warns that slowing AI can leave societies stagnant. He also warns that Western restraints may not bind China.
Those are different pressures, not a settled forecast. A board scenario should separate compute access, procurement speed, and battlefield learning.
“you just are feeding fewer families.”
Nathan Lambert · a16z Podcast · Oct 14Why distillation explains less of China's AI progress than assumed
Peter Thiel · MD MEETS · Sep 24Slowing AI could leave societies stagnant and empower China
Our read
Treat leadership as a control variable, not a guarantee of national victory. Budget scenarios around procurement speed, compute access, and battlefield learning, then revise them against observed performance.
What it means for you
- Map AI dependencies. List your chip, data, application, and model dependencies, then mark who controls each layer. Identify where you can build, switch providers, or lose access.
- Test privacy controls. Ask vendors to demonstrate data access, deletion, and protection from model-provider use. Require audit evidence before expanding sensitive deployments.
- Measure one workflow. Pick one or two uses with business and technical owners. Track output, quality, cost, and worker effects against a baseline.
- Track who benefits. Measure productivity gains alongside wages, affected roles, and the share captured by workers. Use those results in workforce and budget planning.
What to watch
- Whether European leaders name the technology crisis and recruit experienced builders.
- Whether Palantir or other application layers publish verifiable privacy and deployment results.
- Whether job fears and concentrated gains keep turning into protest votes.
Send this to European product leaders and public buyers setting AI policy.
Watch the minute where Karp counts two and a half countries embracing these technologies.
Written by Real Alpha from the episode's transcript and the other moments it links, then checked against the transcript. Quotes are the speaker's exact words.
Minute by minute
- 0:00AI is central to Europe's defense
Karp opens by arguing that Russia would have won without AI systems and that Europe would not exist as it does without these technologies. Döpfner asks why Karp’s public image has changed from that of an intellectual on the left to a figure associated with far-right politics and war. Karp says media portrayals differ from the support he hears from Palantir’s users and argues that the company’s effectiveness in counterterrorism and its role in Ukraine help explain the criticism.
- 9:08Europe's surveillance debate misses data sovereignty
Karp says Palantir’s software is designed to protect data from misuse by large language model providers, and argues that its products are among the only ones available at scale to prevent what critics call surveillance. He says Europe’s greater risk is losing its technical know-how to foreign companies that may not protect privacy or allow data to be deleted. He also contrasts American and European approaches to individual and economic rights.
- 13:35Karp urges Germany to learn from outsiders
Karp describes himself as a progressive who wants better treatment for poor people and says rights should apply even to people one dislikes. He contrasts what he calls German Lutheran skepticism toward wealth with a Calvinist tendency to associate financial success with moral success. He argues Germany should ask what it can learn from people such as Palantir cofounder Peter Thiel rather than exclude them.
- 22:18Karp links AfD support to weak leadership
Karp says the AfD’s rise was predictable after large-scale migration without public buy-in or an honest debate about its consequences. He attributes its support to weak leadership in the political center and says he understands the frustration behind protest votes. He says he would not vote for the AfD and agrees with Döpfner’s objections to its pro-Russia and pro-China positions.
- 29:16Europe needs a tech-building emergency plan
Döpfner connects public frustration to migration and energy policy, economic decline and a weaker startup and risk culture. Karp says European leaders first need to acknowledge a crisis, recruit experienced technology builders and create an economic zone where competition can work as it does in the US, China or Israel. He says Europe needs talent more than money and must develop expertise across the technology stack.
- 38:33AI could help rebuild Europe's industries
Karp argues that AI has already helped Ukraine and that technologies used to prevent attacks have helped shape Europe’s security. He says Germany needs AI to modernize industries such as cars and chemicals and compete with China, especially given its limited workforce. He points to the US, China and Israel as places where he believes adoption is supporting growth.
- 41:57AI could widen wealth gaps
Karp rejects the idea that AI has no downsides, saying it is a valuable resource with negative externalities and requires processing and application layers. He argues that many people may benefit while those involved in AI become far wealthier, worsening social divisions. He says job-loss fears are politically potent, particularly when technology leaders tell people their lives will get worse.
- 48:46Public candor could rebuild trust
Karp says telling people not to believe what they see invites protest votes, and argues that tech leaders should speak honestly about AI’s effects. He says political institutions have low legitimacy and that people often assume leaders are lying. He attributes Palantir’s popularity to its willingness to speak bluntly about the West, national service, adversaries and technology’s limits.
- 51:19The AI race turns on political choices
Asked about the US-China race, Karp argues that democratic standards can expose technical problems that others miss, and cites Palantir’s work in Ukraine, Israel and the US. He says China may have an advantage in centralized procurement and engineering leadership, while the West benefits from battlefield experience and can attract people who value democratic and economic rights. Karp warns that Western political opposition to effective technologies could weaken those advantages.
- 58:07Open societies must defend equal rights
Karp says the future of open societies is uncertain and argues that they must fight to preserve rule of law, free speech, privacy and checks on government, including for people others dislike. He calls for broad participation in economic gains while allowing people to benefit from their work. He says Palantir works toward those aims by supporting sovereignty, civil liberties, businesses and Western allies.
Published Jul 13, 2026.
Transcript · 46 min read
MD MEETS, hosted by Mathias Döpfner, with Alex Karp.
Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.
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. Good morning, Alex. We are sitting here in the mid of the mountains of Idaho, near Sun Valley, 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 southern France. And somebody introduced you to me, preparing me by saying Alex Karp is a super interesting guy. He studied at the Goethe University in Frankfurt. Jürgen Habermas was his professor. He's an intellectual. Unfortunately, he has no job, penniless, but an interesting guy.
We met, we got along very well, and I have the feeling this is 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 market cap currently north of 300 billion and certainly people are describing you like a kind of daft better uh a sinister figure of far right-wing ideologies and almost like a war builder. 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. In fact, my personal experience, including in Germany, including and especially in Germany, is the media version, and I'll get to that, is 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. There's also, put this away, every single person in Silicon Valley who finances things would cut off their right arm to have the fans we have. And your 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 the German-speaking world, people do not understand the impact of Axel Springer.
Read the whole transcript
And which, Axel Springer Verlag, which you, you know, it's easy to say you run, but it's different. And, you know, in Germany, there really aren't that many. I can't think of any other eigentum or someone who owns a significant stake in the company that's also running it. So it's a 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, the whole setup is very, very unusual. and then you know yeah i mean what i think uh bound us together from the beginning is you're um you're a it doesn't translate well to english but a music scientist so we don't really have science and music and i guess in america but it sounds kind of fake even though i'm sure there is a faculty that but in any case um Um, uh that's a very unusual setup on your end yeah we are both outsiders that's absolutely true and uh we both um are polarizing that's also fair to say i just tried to get it why a person that i met almost a quarter 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 sharp contrast well i get the origin that i'm
gonna let me let me ask answer the question it's the exact right framing but i still want to push back on the it there's almost no one else in tech maybe one or two that were who has anything like the fans i have so it's there's this both the outside kind of i would say especially in your much less so here version of me pallinger peter which is exactly what you described but i 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 want to do things in germany as an example so in any case but let me get to let
“But since we launched the product, it has stopped hundreds and hundreds of terror attacks.”
from America. I mean, you have described me many times that your main goal, your mission is to protect democracy. And that's what you are 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 in order to protect democracy I think is a good thing. But why is that perceived problematic?
“That application layer protects your data from being essentially abused by large language model providers.”
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 protect rights enough vis-a-vis government. So no 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 to 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 still American in that I like my first, second, and fourth amendment, but I would like to see a better treatment for poor. You would still describe yourself as a progressive, correct? 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. 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?
Like, why do we moralize everything? Also, if it is about Germans who have been very successful in America in the Silicon Valley, Peter Thiel, Tobie Littke, Schindler, Philip Schindler. So, there are a couple of Germans who made 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, like, I mean, as a generalization, Germany is a very Lutheran culture and we're a Calvinist culture. So, like, we equate success with being the 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. Calvinists, 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 so, and then, and I think Palantir is the archetypical example.
You can say, basically against all technical evidence that Palantir are 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 is going to happen? wrong in our culture that we have no other application layer that would allow us to do this. Probably the most impactful and successful German of recent decades is Peter Thiel. You know him well. He was the co-founder of Palantir. Is he an anti-democrat? Is he a religious fanatic? 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 that I, how much money I've made fairer 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, I would start with, again, and it's a very German concept. See, again, I think what is happening, what scares me a little in Germany is it's an importation of a version of America on top of German ideals that are kind of are attenuated um and uh 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 you 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 authoritarian regimes, that's a different thing than this person, I think, should not be used, should not be a role model.
The question is here, is it a misunderstanding of progress or is there a point? No, no. I'm going to, first of all, it is a misunderstanding. It's not true. But I'm going to push back on that. I don't believe, you can, I am reading books on Deng Xiaoping. I read a book on Mao. I'm reading books on Mao. I've read a lot of books on, I'm learning a lot. from Mao and Dijkstra. I don't agree with Mao in 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 tech scene. The German tech scene should be the number two in the world by any historical standard. Honestly, the German tech scene 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 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 currently. So my first cut, and you see this in this, 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 progression, in alignment with the West. We should have an alliance that is, those of us who don't agree, that alliance 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 dekungsgleich, meaning with almost, but where I think there is distance would be my approach, which is, the first question I would asked 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 like 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 will 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 caricature thinker 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? It 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. So like 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 Avde. Okay, it's absurd. 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. That's obviously not true. AI was supposed to take over the parts of the job you hate.
Turns out, it made your job even harder. Instead of doing the work, it gave you homework. ServiceNow's AI specialists get work done from start to finish. Cases get resolved. Loops get closed. With ServiceNow, you can do the parts of your job you're best at and delegate the rest. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com. What is your take, actually, on the rise of the AfD in Germany? As somebody who has studied in Germany speaks German, cares 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 AfD, what is it for you? Is it a normal party or is it? I think the AfD 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 extreme parties was super predictable. And I may have been shouting about this for the last 10 years. If you're going to bring in, doing widespread, very deep and large migration into Germany without the buy-in of the German people and 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, you know, if my family hadn't left Germany, I would be a lampshade. I mean, they left before the Holocaust. I'm very, everybody understands and is sympathetic, but we haven't, you have in Europe, but especially in Germany, just an impossibly difficult, painful inability to talk about obvious facts.
But the average person on the street is living with these facts. You're avoiding my question. What do you think about the AfD? Palantir is defending Ukraine against Russia. The AfD is asking Ukraine. And just recently, one of the leaders said, we have to... Of course, Ukraine at the table to negotiate with Russia. That is turning history and perpetrator and victim upside down. No, no, I totally – I'm going to get to the point where I agree with you. I just – again, like you're starting with the moral thing. I'm starting with the economic reason and cultural reason why this thing exists. See, the question you asked is why are they in ascendancy?
And they're much – Afdeh is much stronger than they appear because I have friends who five years ago were telling me they would never vote for the Afdeh. who are voting for the off day, like people who are social Democrats. And then when the off day is polling at 40%, there's another 10 points above that that would vote for them if they weren't the off day. And so honestly, I think the off day is just the consequence of weak leadership in the center of the 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 good for Germany.
I personally think that the IFD 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 authoritarian 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. So, this is just not an alternative, and I just would like to hear from you because some people are accusing Peter or you that you have a certain leaning or understanding for that.
No, no, okay. Try to clarify. Well, this is, again, I basically agree with everything you said, but the point I would push back on, I have a deep understanding for why they're succeeding. So, it's like I would not vote for the AfD if I were able to vote and were voting in Germany. And, but that's different from, I think part of the reason they're successful is that, first of all, no one actually believes, like, 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 off day basically because you know it's a protest vote and you know 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 were to describe you, classically left-leaning person who's a little bit more bought into the capitalist narrative than I am. That's how I would describe it. If I were to describe you properly. Okay. You get pilloried and you tell everybody,
I'm against the off day. God knows you have no sympathy for anyone who's pro-Russia. I mean, like you believe for that like we're on the front line put in i should always clarify we have nothing against the russians we have nothing against the chinese but we have a lot i'm just kidding i i 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 i i have a deep appreciation of russian culture russian math i have 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-Putin, 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, I'm much more like, yeah, I want to understand why. Of course, I'm not interested in voting for them, but I understand why. And you're more on the, they're wrong, they're wrong, they're wrong, which is why our dialogues are fun. This is basically like it would be in private. Okay. So that I, Palantir, we, something I am actually frustrated with in Europe is, again, the anti-terror things would be very different and Ukraine would not have been able to succeed. Okay. Let me just finish this. But so obviously I'm not interested in supporting a party that is deeply sympathetic with Putin, is interested in, like, I think Europe made it, like, that is sympathetic with the CCP.
And quite frankly, these parties are complex, but they're, you know, the AfD does contain people that I kind of would suspect would not like me very much. Okay, but Alex, I think the frustration of people is very much driven by a failed migration policy, a failed energy policy, and the journey in Europe is completely... And the GDP decline. Exactly. It's not delivering on economic growth. That has to do with a lack of startup culture, of risk culture. In America, people deploy millions to a new idea and just believe that the impossible is possible. Whereas in Europe and in Germany, we have to a large degree a very risk-focused culture.
And here we are entering the era of AI, whether it's an opportunity or a threat. And I think we should also discuss the cultural differences between America and Europe and Germany in the context of these developments.
“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.”
I think that's a very dangerous case, but that's what's happening and has already started. So, if that's ongoing and every kind of new data center is a big issue and raises a lot of protests and so on,
“You have to say, first, we have a crisis. We are going to get the best people in the world to come.”
to rebuild these industries so you can compete and win? There is no other way. Alex, 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.
“the people involved are likely to get 10, 100 times wealthier than they already are.”
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 they have no income. And then the political version that scares me a lot, and I do think, and I'm yelling at everyone in Silicon Valley in 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 your 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 your 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 know. 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 you 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 it as the most unpopular. We have for every time you read someone, we have a hundred times. 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 is superior. We need national service, which means helping out old people. It doesn't mean no industry 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 want to 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 your lying eyes on migration. Don't believe your lying eyes on nuclear. Don't believe your lying eyes on AI.
They get up and they vote for people who are like, screw these people. I'm going to burn down the 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 would be super interesting. But we have to come to an end sooner or later, Alex, and that's why I would like to touch upon geopolitics.
“these technologies are clearly the future combined with others, but you just are feeding fewer families.”
Alex, the very last question of our conversation. We are living in a 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, 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 are 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 ten years a more autocratic world where strong men and autocrats are dominant or do you rather think that what we are 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. 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 they're like the crazy thing is the functional allies of our adversaries now uh 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 like 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 and 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, you know, 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 know, you get to be Swiss if you're Swiss, but you also believe that people who aren't Swiss have a valuable culture. You get to be American if you're you know the the the people who are working the hardest to destroy that those concepts and are the most effective in joining those concepts call themselves progressive they're not progressive or they call themselves you know uh i don't know super far right they're not even right wing like you know one of the one of the things i think is hilarious though on that score is you know i spent
a lot of time in germany uh talking to people who you know some of them regretted 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. We know people on the far right are very diverse on all fronts. But people on the far left, I think, the people I hung out with in the the Frankfurter School, which is a truly, was left of 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 is not Marx, it's Heidegger. 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, a sector 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
there's no way. These are like prototypical, non-progressive, classically right-wing thoughts just reapplied to people who call themselves progressive. And that's the society that Palantir and I are effectively working against. 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 businesses keep 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 the conversation. Thank you. Take care.
