Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp has become the latest of many—including Oppenheimer director Christopher Nolan—to draw parallels between the invention of nuclear weapons and that of artificial intelligence.
In a New York Times op-ed, Karp wrote that concerns about the dangers of A.I. were “not unjustified,” but its development should not be halted because, like it or not, we are now stuck in an A.I. arms race. And that, per Karp, means people in the U.S. tech industry should enthusiastically embrace links with the U.S. military.
“We must not…shy away from building sharp tools for fear they may be turned against us,” Karp wrote. “Our hesitation, perceived or otherwise, to move forward with military applications of artificial intelligence will be punished.”
This is not a new stance for Karp, who said earlier this year that employees unhappy with the data-wrangling company’s military contracts should leave. “We want people who want to be on the side of the West, making the West a better society,” he said at the time. After all, when Google employees forced that company to pull out of a Pentagon A.I. project in 2018, it was Palantir that jumped in to fill the gap.
And it’s not just Karp pushing this line. Notably, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has also loudly denounced calls for an A.I.-development pause, arguing that it would only benefit China’s A.I. efforts. Like Karp, Schmidt has skin in the game, with his VC firm Innovation Endeavors investing in companies such as Rebellion Defense, a military A.I. firm with U.S. Air Force contracts.
Today also brought another sign of a resurgent tech military-industrial complex, with the U.S. Commerce and Defense departments agreeing to “expand collaboration to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor defense industrial base.” The gist is that the two departments will coordinate their investments in developing the U.S. semiconductor sector, so the Chips Act ends up producing “semiconductor chips in America that our military relies on.”
Of course, the U.S. military-industrial complex has achieved great things in the past. The internet itself began life as a project in the DOD-funded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And it may well be that China’s military A.I. progress is so energetic that it merits similar coordination between the military and industry on the other side of the world—though if that is the case, then the knockout evidence isn’t public.
But I would point out two things. First, beware the power of self-interest in those calling for greater links between the U.S. military and tech sector. And secondly, remember the rest of the world.
As the Trump presidency demonstrated, the U.S. may not always be seen as a reliable partner, even in places like Europe. Even during the Obama presidency, which was generally much better received abroad, the revelations of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden caused outrage among U.S. allies, who were horrified that their citizens and governments were being spied upon by the U.S. American intelligence’s ongoing ability to compel American tech companies to hand over the personal data of foreigners continues to foster uncertainty over those companies’ ability to operate in Europe.
Tying the tech sector to the military doesn’t just raise ethical questions—it could put those tech firms in a very awkward position if the U.S. becomes seen in a less friendly light by today’s partners. So tread lightly.
More news below.
Want to send thoughts or suggestions to Data Sheet? Drop a line here.
David Meyer
