The Palantir Yale Jeremiad (Not Quite a Polemic But Not a Colloquy)
May 8, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I think this is a click bait title for those who have some exposure to the Jesuits. For others, the reaction will be, “Jeremiad? Is that an NBA superstar?” I thought the use of the word “jeremiad” was clever, but others may find the reference puzzling. Sigh.
Thanks, Venice.ai. You only protested that my image was violating your guardrails a couple of times. Well, good enough.
After reading the New York Magazine essay, “Palantir Comes to Campus: At a Quiet Conference at Yale, the Company and Its Allies Sketched a Vision for AI, State Power, and How to Mix the Two.” From my point of view, the magazine’s write up did not provide enough cross references, glosses, annotations, and endnotes to the relevant antichrist lectures of Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, the Lord of the Rings, and the philosophical writings of René Girard, among others. (Love me some Girard.)
The essay is a snapshot of a chit chat organized by the Palantir Foundation, a commercially-funded Ivory Tower for big AI tech or BAIT ideas. The topic for the event was ““National Power and Purpose in the Age of AI.” Full disclosure: I converted the title of the event to Napp-ai. You can make of this shorthand what you will. I did not spell the acronym “nappy” which shows some measure of judgment I suppose.
The main “points” struck me from the New York Magazine piece were:
- Humans cannot do government. AI is the answer. It is definitely good to be the human controlling the AI I assume.
- The government should become software. Obviously the old and weird deliberative approach is not working. It is good to be in a senior government position responsible for software or be working for the big software outfit supporting the new government.
- The Great Chain of Being is back. AI mavens and AI are at the top. Ergo, a digital god or Mt. Olympus of zeros and ones.
- The wimp approach to treating humans is over. The approach is expensive and doesn’t work. AI software works… mostly.
The cited New York Magazine article quotes one luminary as pointing out:
Princeton Classics graduates… couldn’t even read Latin.
Keep in mind the conference was held at Yale, where I presume classics grads can indeed read Latin. As Plautus observed:
Si decem habeas linguas, mutum esse addecet.
Translation: I you had 10 tongues, you ought to hold them all.
The meta-view of the conference seems to be encapsulated in this statement from the New York Magazine essay:
In their book, The Technological Republic, they contend that Silicon Valley lost its way after the Cold War as the technology sector retreated from the public interest and into “luxury beliefs” — opposition to using software to help law enforcement among them. The rot, in their telling, began in higher ed: Stanford dropped its History of Western Civilization requirement in 1968, and the generation that built the internet grew up constructing its identity “in opposition to the state.” It became squeamish about helping governments do government things, like deporting people. Karp [founder of Palantir and philosopher] and Zamiska [Palantir’s PR person] take particular offense at Google’s former motto, “Don’t be evil.” That old maxim reflects, they write, a mind-set that prizes moral clarity over “the more difficult and often messy task of navigating the world in all of its imperfection.” Palantir would not make the same mistake.
Let’s step back. The Jeremiad at Yale is part of Palantir’s and its adherents efforts to implement BAIT’s vision for the way the US and probably most of the world to operate. Forget government and the people. Just compress the idea into government and AI plus some fellow travelers to the new world order.
Let me offer several observations:
- The New York Magazine essay does not ruffle too many Palantirian plumes. Unfortunately the result is a collection of generalizations about how Palantir and Mr. Thiel’s ideas will be implemented. (Yep, these folks think that their AI way in the new Information Highway.,)
- The objective of the Karpy dieum is power and control. With those two fundamental elements, money will accrue to the superior beings; for example those who recognize the genius of Mr. Girard and his ilk.
- The academic trappings of this Lord of the Rings reality show are intended to bestow the halo of big thinking on the ideas of Dr. Karp. I like to think of the approach as Thielism, but, like it or not, Dr. Karp is the mouthpiece for the movement in my opinion.
Net net: As a dinobaby, I marvel at this mash up of search and retrieval technology, power, money, surveillance, and a new world order assembled from bits and pieces of some quite interesting ideas. Personally I am delighted to be able to observe first hand how BAIT catches carp and other fish.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2026
Word of the Day: Techlordism. Yes! Winner!
May 8, 2026
How many ideologies are we dealing with today? More than we should need to from both sides of the political and cultural spectrum. They’re redundant, absurd, and appalling to the majority moderate population in the country.?I will say one side is louder than the other, but I won’t say which to avoid controversy.?What stinks is that The Point says there’s a new ideology we’ll now have to deal with straight from Big Tech: “Palantir And The New Order: Neoliberalism Is Dead. Say Hello To Techlordism.”
The editorial starts by saying neoliberalism was the “undisputed creed” of the global elite.?Neoliberalism arose from the ashes of the New Deal and it spread the gospel that Wall Street was infallible.?Now there’s a new modus operandi called techlordism straight from Silicon Valley and the rich people of the world.?It derives from cloud capital, meaning networked algorithm machines that give Big Tech lots of power to modify behaviors.?It sounds like this also includes screen time for the kiddies along with AI chatbots.
Here’s the plan for techlordism:
“Consider the three fronts. First, techlordism must legitimise replacing fallible, recalcitrant humans with cloud capital in every realm, from medicine to poetry translation to raising children. Why? Because the deeper the penetration, the greater the cloud rents for the technofeudal class. Second, it must legitimise colonising the state—privatising public data, hooking systems into the tax office and the Pentagon, as Elon Musk’s DOGE and Peter Thiel’s Palantir have already done. Third, it must legitimise colonising Wall Street, merging cloud capital with financial services to create unfettered cloud finance outside traditional markets.”
Techlordism will replace the now old-fashioned transhumanism in a way similar to neoliberalism zapped classical liberalism. The current ideals related to the human economy are replaced with pseudo-AI psyches that control everything and take over human thinking. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The write up states:
“…ubiquitous surveillance, automated targeting on the battlefields, macroeconomic instability (as cloud rents destroy aggregate demand), the end of democracy as even an ideal (cheered by Peter Thiel), and the death of universities replaced by personalised AI augmentations.”
And what outfit is linked with these ideas? The write up leaves me with the impression that Palantir Technologies is the pointy end of the new world order spear. Erasing privacy and using fear as a force leads to this, according to the article:05
“The idea that it is wrong to judge someone by the colour of their skin, ethnicity, or religion must be jettisoned. Blacks, Muslims, most Asians, and of course, women, are inferior untermensch. Western men have for half a century resisted putting these subhumans in their place in the name of inclusivity. It was a mistake. Subhumans must never be allowed in, except as servants or sex service providers—at least until Palantir and Tesla can perfect our androids, in which case they will become surplus to requirements.”
I quite like the phrase “surplus to requirements.” If you ask, “Whose requirements?”, the answer just may be some of those big AI tech (BAIT) pros. These folks definitely know what they want and have the confidence to believe that their views are the correct ones. Sounds like a Sillycon Valley plan to me.
Whitney Grace, May 8, 2026
The Information Highway Leading to the New World Order Theme Park Is Now Clear
May 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Tim Bray (formerly OpenText big dog) published an essay titled “Life During Class Wartime.” The essay pointed out:
As a resident of a wealthy West-Coast New-World city, the effects of pathological inequality are in my face every day: Bentleys gleaming on the road, ragged people huddled in the rain cadging cash outside the drugstores, thousands homeless. Why is that bad? · It’s not only a sinful by any sane definition of sin, but stupid, inefficient, and damaging.
Two days ago, I wrote about what I call a Karp-ifesto. My blog write up discussed some of the more interesting points of the new world order envisioned by Peter Thiel and his acolytes. I want to point out that I am a dinobaby, and thankfully I won’t be around to watch the New Dark Age roll in from Sillycon Valley.
A modern family zipping down the road to the New World Order Theme Park. It’s bigger than Disney. It is much, much more too. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
I want to approach this politicization of money and technology from a different angle. I want to ask you a direct question, “Is the information I will share in this blog post in line with the values one wants one’s children to manifest?” You can take it from here.
I read this morning “Google’s CEO Just Dropped a Wild New YouTube Number.” The source is The Street, an online publication that presents information about business. The article includes some allegedly accurate factoids. Let me share a few and encourage you to read the other cited essays in this short post.
I noted this statement:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai [the big dog at Google] told analysts that U.S. viewers are now watching more than 200 million hours of YouTube on their TVs every single day.
This items snagged my attention as well:
He paired that with a creator-side stat. More than 10 million channels are now publishing Shorts every day as of March. Both numbers landed inside a quarter that beat Wall Street on revenue and crushed it on earnings.
And this passage:
The U.S. has roughly 131 million households, per the Census Bureau. Spread 200 million daily hours of YouTube across them, and you get more than 90 minutes of YouTube on the TV per household, every day. That is before phones, tablets, or laptops enter the picture.
These statements do not include Google search, maps, AI, etc.
Let’s go back to the question: ““Is the information I will share in this blog post in line with the values one wants one’s children to manifest?”
Let me add a couple of more interrogatories:
- What type of information control does Google have?
- Is a monoculture healthy?
- Why did this type of global influence engulf regulatory controls?
When I look at Bray’s comments, the Karp-ifesto, and the Google kudzu, do you have any idea how the future will unspool? I try not to dwell on it. I am an 82 year old dinobaby. My readership data suggests you are not as old as I. You may be interested in the future where guest services are provided by smart software and safety is guaranteed because surveillance has benefits.
Consider your answers.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2026
Telegram and Durov: Some Fancy Dancing Kazachok Style
May 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Online posts and cyber publications have hinted that changes have been afoot at Telegram. I want to comment about one story from Decrypt.co, an online information service. “TON Surges 36% as Telegram ‘Replaces’ TON Foundation” reported:
Toncoin has jumped on Pavel Durov’s pledge to slash fees to near-zero, with TON meme coins piling on gains of up to 150%.
For some, no service charges or what the crypto professional calls “gas fees” is welcome news. When crypto moves through a series of services for conversion from one coin to another, then to a specialist shop, and finally to a “nominee” or actual owner — the service charges add up. Telegram wants to reduce the pain of TONcoin-denominated transactions.
Pavel Durov demands change. Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The article pointed out:
Illia Otychenko, Lead Analyst at CEX.IO, told Decrypt the rally fits a familiar pattern. “Toncoin has a history of sharp rallies whenever Telegram increases its involvement or signals deeper integration, and this move fits that pattern,” he said. “Right now, it looks more like an early-stage narrative-driven spike rather than a full fundamental repricing.” Otychenko flagged $2 as the key resistance level, a ceiling TON failed to break earlier this year, and warned that momentum indicators are flashing caution.
Got that?
Pavel Durov and his Telegram entities are taking immediate and direct action to address a number of challenges his sprawling empire faces. One of the most problematic is that “value” of the TONcoin. The TONcoin has lost considerable “value” in the last year.
A number of interesting questions arise from the announcement that the TON Foundation is now in flux or limbo. One’s point of view determines how to describe this marketing organization.
Let’s list a few of the questions that analysts and regulators are likely to ask:
- Is the TON Foundation what it said it would be when registered in Switzerland, ostensibly to take over the TONcoin, the TON blockchain, and the cheerleading for the Telegram platform?
- Will the two Telegram-linked NASDAQ companies (TON Strategy Co. and Alpha Compute) strengthen their financial positions or will losses continue to accrue?
- Will Russia’s pressure on Telegram morph into the organization’s finding itself slapped with the label “terror related”?
- Will France exert additional pressure on Telegram to shut down certain illegal activities conducted on the Telegram platform by bad actors?
- Will staff working on Telegram-related projects remain committed to the organization? Will developers building Telegram mini apps and distributed applications defect to other platforms?
- Will US super app platforms attract attention from bad actors who are looking to deploy AI-enabled agents to conduct certain illegal activities?
Net net: Telegram is pushing its “renovation and change” button. In fact, it is not pushing. It is just mashing the button repeatedly at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2026
The Search Engine Graveyard: A New Resident
May 5, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I was working for a search-and-retrieval company when AskJeeves.com became available in 1997. As it turned out, the natural language breakthrough that set AskJeeves apart from the other Web search engines was its question-answering angle. The firm at which I worked hired “content specialists.” From interviewing job seekers, I learned that AskJeeves’ approach was to can certain common questions. The answers to these questions would be updated. Some were automated like “What’s the weather in San Francisco?” but others required a human to craft a response. Other queries were passed to a search-and-retrieval system. Manual processes here are expensive. AskJeeves, therefore, bought “promising” companies for their indexing and content processing capabilities; for example, Jigsaw Technologies in 2000, Direct Hit Technologies in 2000 (specializing in search result ranking), and Teoma Technologies in 2001. AskJeeves tried repurposing its technology for customer service. But Google was maturing into the organization we all know today. In 2005, Barry Diller added AskJeeves to his collection of Internet properties. After the acquisition, Mr. Diller learned that Web search was a difficult and expensive business. The Ask.com service became a metasearch system, recycling search results from other Web indexing outfits in an effort to reduce costs.
Mashable has now reported that Ask.com is dead. “Every Great Search Must Come to an End” said:
Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.
I want to add a bit of color to the demise of this Web search system.
My view is that smart software is indeed search-and-retrieval, just with bells and whistles. Systems like AskJeeves knew that handling queries from users was a tricky business. A certain percentage of queries were repetitive. These could be created and later cached. The acquisitions made clear that the original founders could not innovate in substantive ways. Garrett Gruener and David Warthen could recognize interesting technology and its applications. The acquisitions added some scope to the AskJeeves service, but financial realities sparked a sale to Barry Diller’s IAC in 2005. Web search became the province of deep-pocket entities like Google and Microsoft. These firms’ money came from reasonably solid revenue streams. Google sold ads and its pay-to-play model, and Microsoft licensed software. Without meaningful regulation, Google-type organizations trampled over companies like Lycos and All-the-Web, among others. .
This means that today, search-and-retrieval technology exists but has adopted a new vocabulary. The constants are the same: Expensive, complex, and expensive. Did I mention expensive?
The trajectory of AskJeeves is essentially the same for other search-and-retrieval enterprises: Rollout, technical enhancement, utility function, and disappearance or replacement by a spiffed-up version of the old stuff. If this sounds like the trajectory of artificial intelligence, I have made my point. One can apply this general pattern to Autonomy plc, Fast Search & Transfer, and dozens of search-and-retrieval systems that did not evolve into viable businesses. The technology may chug along in a content management system or may be used to perform a background activity, but the spotlight is not on old-school content search. Instead, attention is paid to smart software that requires massive infrastructure to do what humans did for AskJeeves. I would suggest that human-intermediated systems are more common than the marketers want to communicate. Therefore, AI is probably going to follow an AskJeeves type of fate over the next decade or two.?
Why do I suggest this? Here are my reasons based on my research while writing several books about search, including The New Landscape of Search, CyberOSINT: Next Generation Information Access, and The Enterprise Search Report 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions, among others.
- Indexing can be automated, but one must know what words or phrases to use in the query in order to match certain content. A search in Bing, Google, or Yandex for “financial fraud” will not allow a teen to become a criminal in 10 minutes. Enter the term “carding,” and the game changes. Even today, software cannot replicate this “lingo knowledge.” Many tricks are used to try to know what the user really wants, but these fall short. The tricks like “field codes” themselves become because a person looking for information must know the code to get the chunked results..
- Content is fluid. Language is fluid. Search systems such as those used by Dialog’s or SDC perform best with static terminology. Scholars like static terminology. Indexing conventions try to cope with contextual issues; for example, does “terminal” mean “train station” or does it mean “mainframe peripheral”? The money pumped into smart software is trying to solve this basic problem for many user queries (or in new lingo, “user prompts”).
- The context of information is [a] volatile because today’s problem may not have existed yesterday and [b] situational; that is, every user operates within an “information ecosystem.” Outsiders have a tough time knowing what the characteristics of the ecosystem imply; for example, “loca” may mean one thing to a YouTube cruise personality and another thing to a person working in nuclear safety engineering. That’s why the efforts at personalization are becoming increasingly invasive. Ecosystem information is needed to provide somewhat useful outputs. What if that ecosystem is classified? Well, the big vendors don’t care. They will take what they can get because without it, the outputs are likely to be wrong or potentially quite problematic.
With the reality of change in these three facets of search-and-retrieval, it is appropriate to appreciate the efforts so many people have contributed to making “search” better. Too bad that most of these systems have failed and burned massive sums of money as they trail flames and smoke across the conference rooms in which revenue talks are held.
I have resisted writing about smart software. Everyone I meet is convinced that artificial intelligence is, by golly, the next big thing. Okay. I have other topics to research. I do want to remind readers that smart software is nothing more than search software wearing the latest designer jeans. That does not make it bad. I think the current skepticism about AI is a normal reaction to the discovery that hallucinations, high costs, and AI systems making decisions about health care, education, and judicial actions will present some problems going forward.
Remember. Search is difficult. Knowledge value requires verifiable facts and a foundation of generally accepted information. Without that, system outputs are useless and potentially harmful. Search gets traction because the systems so far developed don’t quite solve a user’s problem. Thus, search is a work in progress, and that progress is expensive. Mr. Diller pulled the plug.
I want to add a bit of color to the demise of this Web search system.
My view is that smart software is indeed search-and-retrieval just with bells and whistles. Systems like AskJeeves knew that handling queries from users was a tricky business. A certain percentage of queries were repetitive. These could be canned and latter cached. The acquisitions made clear that the original ideas and the original founders could not innovate in substantive ways. The founders, Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, could recognize interesting technology and its applications. The acquisitions added some scope to the AskJeeves service, but financial realities sparked a sale to in 2005. Web search became the province of deep pocket outfits like Google and Microsoft. These firms’ money came from reasonably solid revenue streams. Google sold ads or the pay-to-play model and Microsoft licensed software. Without meaningful regulation, Google-type outfits trampled over Lycos- and All-the-Web type outfits.
This means that search-and-retrieval today exists but it has adopted a new vocabulary. The constants are the same: Expensive, complex, and expensive. Did I mention expensive?
The trajectory of AskJeeves is essentially the same for other search-and-retrieval outfits: Roll out, technical enhancement, utility function, and disappearance or replacement by the old stuff spiffed up. If this sounds like the trajectory of artificial intelligence, I have made my point. One can apply this general trajectory to Autonomy plc, Fast Search & Transfer, and dozens of search-and-retrieval systems that have not evolved into viable businesses. The technology may chug along in a content management system or be used to perform a background activity. But the spotlight is not on old-school search-and-retrieval. The bright new manifestations of search and retrieval capture attention. Hint: smart software that requires massive infrastructure to do what humans did for AskJeeves. I would suggest that human-intermediated systems are more common than the marketers want to communicate. Therefore, AI is probably going to follow an AskJeeves type of trajectory over the next decade or two.
Why do I suggest this? Here are my reasons based on my research and writing of a number of books about search, including The New Landscape of Search, CyberOSINT: Next Generation Information Access, and The Enterprise Search Report 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions, among others.
- Indexing can be automated but one has to know the words or phrases to use in the query in order to match certain content. Today one can navigate to Bing, Google, or Yandex and search “financial fraud.” The results will not allow a teen to become a criminal in 10 minutes. Enter the term “carding” and the game changes. Even today, software cannot replicate this “lingo knowledge.” Many tricks are used to try to know what the user really wants, but these fall short. The tricks themselves become problematic.
- Content is fluid. Language is fluid. Search-and-retrieval, whether old-school like Dialog Information’s or SDC’s approach, likes static terminology. Scholars like static terminology. Indexing conventions try to cope with contextual issues; for example, does “terminal” mean train station or does it mean “mainframe peripheral”? The money pumped into smart software is trying to solve this basic problem for many user queries or in new lingo “user prompts”.
- The context of information is [a] volatile because today’s problem may not have existed yesterday and [b] situational; that is, every user exists within an “information ecosystem.” Outsiders have a tough time knowing what the characteristics of the ecosystem mean; for example, “loca” may mean one thing to a YouTube cruise personality and another thing to a person working in nuclear safety engineering. That’s why the efforts at personalization are becoming increasingly invasive. Ecosystem information is needed to provide useful outputs. What if that ecosystem is classified? Well, the big vendors don’t care. They will take the information because without those data, the outputs are likely to be wrong or potentially quite problematic.
With the reality of change in these three facets of search-and-retrieval, one has to appreciate the efforts so many people have contributed to making “search” better. Too bad that most of these systems have failed and burned massive sums of money as they trail flames and smoke across the conference rooms in which revenue talks are held.
I have resisted writing about smart software. Everyone I meet is convinced that artificial intelligence is — by golly — the next big thing. Okay. I have other topics to research. I do want to remind anyone reading this short blog post that smart software is nothing more than search and retrieval wearing the latest designer jeans. That does not make it bad. I think the current skepticism about AI is a normal reaction to people discovering that hallucinations, high costs, and specter of AI systems making decisions about health care, education, and judicial actions is going to present some problems going forward.
Remember. Search and retrieval are difficult. Knowledge value requires verifiable facts and a foundation of generally accepted information. Without that system outputs are useless and potentially harmful. Search gets traction because the systems don’t quite solve the user’s problem. Thus, search is a work in progress, and that progress is expensive. Mr. Diller pulled the plug.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2026
About Those Data Centers. Yeah, the Ones with Targets on Satellite Imagery. Those Data Centers
May 4, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I read “Amazon Stuck with Months of Repairs After Drone Strikes on Data Centers.” The write up contained a number of factoids I found interesting. One example is the statement “AWS stops billing Middle East cloud customers as repairs to war damage drag on.”
Let’s think about this statement, assuming that it indeed accurate.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough for an act of generosity.
Amazon, for some in the conflict zone and peripheral areas, synonymous with cloud computing. I would argue that in certain areas Microsoft Azure has a more prominent profile. For the present discussion, let’s focus on Amazon. The company does not publish a name, location, and facility capability description for each of its infrastructure locations in Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia,Oman, and Qatar. But Amazon lists AWS regions and availability zones and direct connect locations, usually providing the city and the country. With that information, it is not too difficult to pinpoint the exact location of Amazon facilities by [a] asking a taxi driver if one is in country, [b] making some contact with government-linked business “facilitator,” or [c] getting some gig work market research via Fiverr.com.
My point is that the article makes clear that at this point in time (May 2, 2026 at 236 pm US Eastern time) Amazon has a number of facilities that could become targets at any time. This adds to the challenge Amazon and other data center operators face in contentious parts of the world. How can these facilities defend themselves against drone attacks? If attacked, how can the damaged facility be repaired and returned to “normal” operation?
The reason I bring this up is that the cited article makes a big deal about Amazon not billing Middle East cloud customers for the damage that has occurred. That’s okay. There are some problems that plague the approach:
- So far Amazon has been able to cope with the damage to the handful of its data centers; however, the implication in the write up in my opinion is that getting these facilities back to pre-attack status is not quick and easy. Those two factors translate into costs. Amazon is investing in AI; the company is terminating some employees who are not productive. The “grace period” cannot be extended indefinitely it seems to me.
- If hostilities flare up, data centers are easily identified without help from nations with satellite imagery. This means that a coordinated attack could take out a number of data centers simultaneously. I can envision war planners thinking, “Why not take out the Bahrain and Saudi facilities on one day and then go after the Microsoft Azure facilities the next day?”
- Companies providing services to the large data center operators can also be easy and vulnerable targets. What defensive measures does Equinix-type companies have in place?
Let’s think about how commercial firms like Amazon can protect these quite large, easily findable, and highly vulnerable data centers. Options range from the use of World War II methods like sandbags, temporary defense shielding, and Kevlar shrouds. These are cheap and visible “protections.” The problem is that a drone only has to fly into a power or cooling vent, and the “off switch” can be flipped.
More robust defensive measures run into the same problems as the repairs to damaged facilities: Time, resources, and costs. Data centers vulnerable today will be vulnerable to some indeterminate time in the future. Thus, until the facilities are hardened, they are at risk.
If we think in terms of an aggressor attacking data centers owned by US companies in other countries, the attack surface becomes much larger.
Several observations are warranted:
- The success of attacks on the Amazon facilities makes clear that these structures were not designed, engineered, and constructed to withstand a drone- or other kinetic attack. That seems to have been what I would call an ill-considered decision. The reasons may range from keeping costs down or MBAs in the US don’t think too much about asymmetric issues.
- Data centers now under construction may require expensive hardening if these facilities are located in regions where they become large, easily located targets. Stated another way: The cost of those under construction data centers are likely to go up and require more time before they go online and produce revenue for their operators.
- Future data centers will warrant some design, engineering, and construction scrutiny. The success of Ukraine drone in damaging distant Russian infrastructure is a new factor at least for the “Z” folks.
The Ars Technica write up includes this passage:
The latest AWS status update comes just after another data center developer, the London-based Pure Data Centre Group, said it will pause Middle East data center investments until the ongoing Middle East conflict subsides.
Pure Data is thinking clearly. However, can one really go home again or step into the same river twice? The massive US investment in data centers makes these facilities even more attractive targets than they were when Amazon experienced its first attacks. Going forward, addressing the issue means data centers are going to get more expensive, not less expensive. Statements like “stop billing” might be tough to honor.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2026
Silicon Valley Craziness, May Day 2026 Update
May 4, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
It is May 1, 2026, May Day. If I recall what I learned in the seventh grade is represents hope and vitality. I wonder what my grade school teacher would have said if I told her that Meta fired “Over 1,100 Kenyan workers lost their jobs after blowing the whistle on Meta’s smart glasses content.” Yep, adult content. Now that’s hope and vitality.
Thanks, Venice.ai. This is a convincing Silicon Valley bro who wants his special brand of horticulture to invade everything.
But on May Day 2026 I read an equally interesting write up published on April 26, 2026. I missed this because I was involved in a conference in suburban Boston. “Palantir Employees Are Talking about Company’s Descent into Fascism” nestles next to the Alex Karp’s book publicity campaign. (For an example of how to market a book see “Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s 22-Point Manifesto Declares War on Inclusivity and Hollow Pluralism.”)
Yep, Silicon Valley. Frisky content on smart glasses and pretty sporty content in a tasty manifesto package.
Let’s look at the “Descent into Fascism” write up because it is a bright sunny day in rural Kentucky. There is nothing like a brush with allegations of fascism to bring that metaphor of hope and vitality to life.
Let’s do the descent thing!
The first thing I noticed is that Ars Technica is recycling a story from Wired Magazine.
The next point that caught my attention was this sequence in the Ars Wired write up:
“Our involvement with ice has been internally swept under the rug under Trump2 too much,” one person wrote in a Slack message WIRED reported at the time. “We need an understanding of our involvement here.” Around this time, Palantir started wiping Slack conversations after seven days in at least one channel where most of the internal debate takes place, #palantir-in-the-news. Because the decision wasn’t formally announced before the policy rolled out, one worker who noticed the deletions asked in the channel why the company was removing “relevant internal discourse on current events.” A member of Palantir’s cybersecurity team responded, writing that the decision was made in response to leaks.
I quite like the idea of hiding information. I am not sure about employee understanding of the motives and methods of Silicon Valley founder philosophers. Deleting content is nothing new. Those broken stone tablets in Egypt provide a hint that destroying content has been a characteristic of humans for a while.
The third item that caught my attention was:
In March, Karp gave an interview to CNBC claiming that AI could undermine the power of “humanities-trained—largely Democratic—voters” and increase the power of working-class male voters. While critics reacted to the piece, calling the statements concerning, so did employees internally: “Is it true that AI disruption is going to disproportionately negatively affect women and people who vote Democrat? and if it is, why are we cool with that?” one worker asked on Slack in a channel dedicated to news about Palantir.
This comment echoed some of the marketing hoo-hah about Cambridge Analytica. For those who work in online information, the shaping or weaponizing is part of the game. Call filtering “selective dissemination of information” or SDI and the method is a benefit to a researcher who wants to review on point content efficiently. Just do this weaponization or shaping without telling anyone is a quite powerful method for controlling what people think. Information has motive force, and it can move people to action: A new idea or a riot cleverly renamed “flash mob” several years ago.
The Ars Wired story loops back to reference the Karp-ifesto, and I urge you to read that if you have time.
Several observations:
- The Palantir “story,” its landing of significant government contracts, and the Karp book are a bit like a flower blooming on May 1, 2026. More to come.
- The push to convert the US to the Silicon Valley way is now underway. Time may be running out, and the tech bros may not get another, easier chance to flip American back to the Great Chain of Being approach popular in the Dark Ages
- Acceleration does not just apply to smart software. Going fast destabilizes going slow humans and institutions that exist to provide social stability. The speed is needed to create the greenhouse in which these May Day flowers can flourish.
I don’t want to be so obscure and indirect. But I am a dinobaby. Enjoy the new month. I know I will.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2025
China Smart. US Dumb: The Misinformation Game the Silicon Valley Way
May 4, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
China has been plugging along with its “China smart, US dumb” influence operation for a number of years. I have documented some of the more interesting variations; for example, a humble young girl working with few tools repairing a large mechanical component. Amazing, right? Yes, because the production hides the assistants, the equipment, and the technical experts who are making the impossible seems trivial to this clever Asian. For an example, check out this Google YouTube confection.
Most of the Chinese AI models enter the US market with a few news releases and stories about each in AI centric blogs. But most people don’t know a QWEN from a GLM. A Deepseek is, based on comments made to me at the National Cyber Crime Conference 2026, is confused with the Googley DeepMind brand.
A group of big AI tech executives ponder the interaction of a a cute panda with a big bird. None of those in the meeting find the illustration amusing. Touching one’s face suggests a need for reassurance and comfort when considering “better, faster, and cheaper.” Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Some people have noticed that China is providing low cost or no cost AI technology. Earlier this year Anthropic claimed that three Chinese companies “ripped it off,” using its AI tools to train their models. Examples include CNN which stated in April 2026 that the “White House accurses China of copying American AI models in industrial-scale campaign.”
Today my newsfeed displayed an even more interesting twist to this China vs. US AI propaganda or what might be called signaling about impending lobbying or litigation. Wired published a story that reveals that US AI companies are scared of Chinese technology. This is my reading of the carefully worded report “A Dark Money Campaign Is Paying Influencers to Frame Chinese AI As a Threat.” The useful information in the write up is not how China’s penetration of the AI BAIT (big AI tech) theme park has been. The juicy bit is:
Build American AI, a nonprofit linked to a super PAC bankrolled by executives at OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz, is funding a campaign to spread pro-AI messaging and stoke fears about China.
This type of information output may be labeled content marketing, public relations, disinformation, misinformation, messaging, information warfare, or propaganda. For me, the existence of a nonprofit pumping out shaped information makes clear that someone is nervous. When big money and hard nosed investors are involved, the fear of failure motivates entities to take action. In the old days of the mythical Wild West, one can see dusty camps where workers are confined or smell gun smoke wafting on the late afternoon breeze. For me, I prefer information warfare.
The Wired write up asserts:
Marketing agencies are pitching influencers deals such as $5,000 per TikTok video to amplify Build American AI’s messaging about how China’s technological rise should be seen as a threat.
No kidding. The fact that US AI entities are the “dark money” behind the influence campaign certifies that Chinese AI and China’s tactics for making US technology look ridiculously overpriced and inefficient is working. Hey, those hard working females repairing equipment are turning their Middle Kingdom heritage into working QWENs.
Wired asserts that some well known AI and philosophical Silicon Valley types are funding this US smart, China bad effort; to wit:
Supporters of Leading the Future include OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman, venture capitalist and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and AI company Perplexity, according to the PAC.
Wired also includes a lick from the Palantirians and hobbits as well; to wit:
The rhetoric provided to influencers echoes long-standing talking points from companies like OpenAI and Palantir, which have pointed to China’s AI advances as a reason to boost US AI investment and resist tighter domestic regulations on the technology. “We are going to be the dominant player, or China is going to be the dominant player, and there will just be very different rules depending on who wins,” Palantir CEO Alex Karp said on The Axios Show in November.
Palantir is worried. Because if China wins in AI, that means that Palantir will not win. That is indeed bad for those who are helping the White House understand the Chinese AI threat. Silicon Valley — trust me on this — has to win. Those billions and those assertions about the ethical obligation of Silicon Valley are at stake. Silicon Valley AI BAITers have a zeal fueling their interest in advancing US smart software.
Several observations:
- I am not sure where this story originated. Was it the “author” Taylor Lorenz? Was it writers from “Made in China,” a newsletter? Is the story part of an influence campaign? I don’t know. I am reasonably sure that no one will probe too deeply into the Wired branded write up. That tells me something.
- The Wired article and the commentary about it does not bring up the Chinese influence campaign. That also tells me something about the depth of research and analysis invested in this story. My newsfeed determined that the article was important enough to put in under my nose at 9 am on May 2, 2026.
- The AI “revolution” is not a company-level problem in China. In the US, the merger of BAIT and the US government makes policy decisions a bit more like pushing a blob of clay and hoping that something useful emerges from the blog some distance away. China is more direct: Better, faster, and cheaper. Goal: Undermine US AI credibility.
Net net: The Silicon Valley “way” is the target of the Chinese AI push. Believe me. Silicon Valley tech bros are aware of this competitive pressure. Bombast, manifestos, and TikToks are not likely to blunt what has been going on since the AI craziness took off in 2022. Microsoft is already blinking. Critics of AI are getting clicks. Who hasn’t heard about the B to Z guys, Burry and Zitron (b2z0, not the a16z or the Andreessen Horowitz numeronym. Worth watching for someone, not a dinobaby like me.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2026
How Is That Anything-Goes Attitude Going, Mr. Musk?
May 1, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Yes, the tech bros want to be able to do what they want, how they want, and when they want. That sounds great kicked back in a Pala Alto conference room, watching the gluten free pizza get cold, and bros in the Untuckit shirts thinking about the technology controlled world.
But then some annoying third party, wearing a worn blue suit, a gray-tinged white shirt, and wrinkled tie messes with the plan. Pavel Durov, sleek in black, ended up in a holding cell for several days in Paris in August 2024. Since that day, Telegram has been under stress. Annoying governments kept asking for data. The bombast, the pronouncements, and the posing with a GOAT did not work.
In the US, the reaction has been slower to take shape. It may, however, be beginning to make itself visible. One of the high profile US BAIT (big AI tech) firms is in the midst of a financial engineering play. X.com and Grok (an AI system) have been tossed in a bag with SpaceX. (Isn’t that the outfit whose rockets malfunction or the BAIT firm that puts satellites in the incorrect orbit?)
Reuters published a “trust outfit” story titled “SpaceX Warns That Inquiries into Sexually Abusive AI Imagery May Hurt Market Access.” I was surprised that I did not have to pay to view the trusted item. I noted this statement:
The multiple investigations into xAI’s creation and dissemination of sexually abusive imagery may lead the company ?to lose access to certain markets, parent company SpaceX warned in a prospectus reviewed by Reuters. In a section on risk factors, the S-1 regulatory ?filing said a number of agencies around the world were “actively investigating and making inquiries relating to social media or the use of AI” in relation to advertising, consumer protection and the distribution of harmful content, among other matters.
My recollection is that Mr. Musk informed the French judiciary’s J3 that it was mentally defective for its probe into the Musk operation in France. That’s the spirit. Tell those officious judiciary professionals that they are working with brains a few cans short of a six pack.
The Reuters’ trusted story added:
One challenge SpaceX highlighted was that it faced “allegations that our AI products were used ?to create nonconsensual explicit images or content representing children in sexualized contexts,” the S-1 document said. Such regulatory inquiries could expose SpaceX to lawsuits, liability and government ?action – “including loss of access to certain markets, which has occurred in the past,” the document stated.
Reuters added:
XAI said in January [2026] that it had added measures to block user requests for ?sexualized images of real people, and it said it stops users from generating such content in jurisdictions where that is illegal. The images – which were generated by xAI’s in-house chatbot, Grok – had ?shown women ?and sometimes minors in revealing bikinis or underwear, or edited into degrading or gruesome poses. The pictures caused widespread alarm around the world; one group of researchers estimated there were about 3 million sexualized images while U.S. lawmakers demanded that Google owner Alphabet and Apple yank Grok and X from their app stores. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said around that time that he knew of “literally zero” naked underage images made by Grok.
To illustrate how effective SpaceX’s management is, Reuters provides this glimpse of governance mastery:
XAI’s curbs on Grok appear to have slowed but not stopped the flow of abusive material. In February, Reuters reported that Grok was generating sexualized imagery of people even when users explicitly warned the chatbot that the subjects of those images did not consent. Last week, NBC News found that Grok was still publicly generating sexualized images, including ?of actors ?and pop stars.
As this IPO and governance soap opera unfolds, why has no real trusted reported asked Pavel Durov, “How does the French judiciary J3’s legal process work?” That information might help guide the big dog tech bro in his push to the IPO that he hopes will make him a much-loved, much-respected trillionaire.
The anti-US technology trend seems to be rippling off shore. In the US, Elon the Big Dog may be able to dominate. However, a number of countries are not impressed with SpaceX’s say one thing, do another approach. The unpleasant images are the talk of the lounge at the Golden Acres Retirement Home. How many people want to see Mable naked?
Snort. Snort. Yep, there’s one.
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2026
Manny Stotz: Road Runner Speed
April 30, 2026
I posted another informal essay about the TONcoin asset outfit, TON Strategy Company. The focus is on events in the last few months. The article is “Manny’s Run: The Sprint to the Skolkovo Flip.“
Stephen E Arnold, April 30, 2026
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
