Comment by cjbgkagh

9 hours ago

Like how Tableau is a great UI for grammar of graphics, Palantir is a great UI for ontological expert systems. Technically you could do everything without it but organizations and especially government typically don’t cultivate that level of expertise in their staff.

In my view expert systems typically failed because the organizations would degrade bureaucratically faster than any expert system could accommodate. With AI there isn’t a pre-requisite need for organizational expertise so the tooling will still work in largely dysfunctional orgs which is a property that did not previously exist. With the help of AI people who don’t understand ontologies can still successfully build one.

Separately it is my opinion that Palantir is a CIA cut-out for the Peter Thiel faction. So paying Palantir is like paying tribute to that particular faction. Similar to how other large military purchases are less about the military hardware and more of a client state subscription to ‘align interests’ such that the US is more likely to act in the donor countries interest.

19 comments

cjbgkagh

Reply
generic92034  8 hours ago

> Similar to how other large military purchases are less about the military hardware and more of a client state subscription to ‘align interests’ such that the US is more likely to act in the donor countries interest.

I have a feeling this is no longer a viable model. If "subscribers" get threatened every other day, they will be looking for alternatives.

  • cjbgkagh  8 hours ago

    So long as not subscribing is worse than subscribing countries will still do it. Even if it not in the interest of the country the decision makers can and do still get kickbacks / speaking engagements.

    It’s interesting to read of the ineffectiveness of influence the gulf states thought they had, though I think that speaks more to the relative cost effectiveness of tributes versus blackmail. These states don’t have the security apparatus to both blackmail US politicians and prevent others from blackmailing those same politicians. This second part is essential as it is what maintains the relative advantage.

    I do think they will be less enthusiastic subscribers in the future, and perhaps even shop around for more cost effective approaches. Modi in India is intentionally creating an Indian diaspora as one example and I believe he is bribing politicians to help make this happen.

  • alephnerd  8 hours ago

    > they will be looking for alternatives.

    Who do "they" as in Europe go to?

    China also views the EU as a junior partner [0], is running an ongoing disinfo campaign against the industrial exports of an EU member state [1], and has doubled down on it's support for Russia [2] in Ukraine in return for Russia backing China's claim on Taiwan [3].

    And the EU is uninterested in building domestic capacity for most critical technologies.

    Heck, last week [4] the EU excluded AI, Quantum, Semiconductors, and other technologies from the Industrial Accelerator Act (aka the "Made in EU" act) in order to concentrate on automotive and "net-zero" technologies.

    Given that Chinese technology imports are already under the radar in the EU due to the Ukraine war, this is basically the EU creating a carveout for the US.

    Even the major European Telecom and Space companies like Eutelsat, Deutsche Telekom, and Telefónica bluntly stated that they view the EU's digital sovereignity strategy as dead in the water [5] in it's current form.

    Edit: can't reply

    > They/we will go to domestic producers as much as possible, then China, then US, then rest of the world in that order. At least that would make a rational approach since (for now) unique things like f-35 can become an expensive paperweight on a whim of a lonely sick man. You can't build any sort of defense strategy on that, can you

    But as I clearly showed, the EU is doing otherwise.

    And the EU cannot work with China as long as China backs Russia and undermines European industrial exports.

    All the rhetoric about digital sovereignity and domestic capacity has been just that - rhetoric.

    [0] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...

    [1] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...

    [2] - https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2025-01-...

    [3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russias-shoigu-chinas-wa...

    [4] - https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/eu-axes-ai-chips-and-quantum...

    [5] - https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/europes-digital-sovereignty-...

    • generic92034  7 hours ago

      > And the EU cannot work with China as long as China backs Russia and undermines European industrial exports.

      I mean, that is not that huge a difference compared to the USA (lifting sanctions against Russia, no tariffs there either, but plenty tariffs for "allies"; threatening NATO members in several ways; taking over Russia's "peace" plans for Ukraine 1:1 and putting the pressure solely on Ukraine; (I could go on for pages)).

      I am not sure Americans really understand how much trust is already gone.

      6 replies →

    • kakacik  7 hours ago

      They/we will go to domestic producers as much as possible, then China, then US, then rest of the world in that order. At least that would make a rational approach since (for now) unique things like f-35 can become an expensive paperweight on a whim of a lonely sick man. You can't build any sort of defense strategy on that, can you.

harvey9  4 hours ago

The UK NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world. It absolutely could choose to hire and cultivate that level of expertise but then how would senior management retire into Palantir sinecures?

(It actually has quite a few expert staff who are not delighted with the tools they have been given but they don't have the lobbying power of Palantir and the cluster of consulting firms around it)