Background of This Book
Who is the Author?
“The Technological Republic” is written by Alex Karp, co-founder and CEO of Palantir. He is the soul of Palantir and the person who best represents it, even more so than co-founder Peter Thiel.
Alex Karp is to Palantir what Bill Gates is to Microsoft, Sam Altman to OpenAI, or Mark Zuckerberg to Meta.
Palantir is not an ordinary company
As I emphasized in my posts,”The value of Palantir, pros and cons of Palantir investment” and “What kind of company is Palantir?“
Alex Karp and Peter Thiel, these two are majored in philosophy; Alex Karp holds a PhD in philosophy, while Peter Thiel holds a JD. Their unique backgrounds contribute to the creation of a company unlike any other.
Why is this book important?
The Technological Republic is the only book on Palantir, and to date, the only published publication that offers an in-depth look at the company. Palantir itself is mysterious and atypical, with a unique corporate culture that differs significantly from any other Silicon Valley or software company you or I know. Alex Karp even moved the company’s headquarters from Silicon Valley to Colorado.
Alex Karp’s view on software
Software is Art
The core of Silicon Valley isn’t just hiring the best talent, but treating them like the best, giving them the flexibility, freedom, and space to create. Alex Karp believes that the most effective software companies are often art colonies, filled with unique and talented individuals. Their reluctance to conform or yield to power is often their most valuable instinct.
Book to Palantir new employees
Palantir gives new employees a somewhat difficult book about improvisational theater, which bears many similarities to the abysmal challenges of founding or joining a startup. To inhabit a character and express oneself on stage requires an embrace of chance and a certain degree of mental resilience. These qualities are crucial for founding and leading a company.
The process of building technology is filled with breathtaking improvisation. Building software and technology is an art and science of observation, not theory. We must constantly let go of notions of what should be possible in theory and embrace practical approaches. It is precisely this sensitivity to audiences, the public, and customers that allows us to build things.
The Rise of the Company
Privacy Controversy
Whether the United States should use science and technology to address violent crime is a matter of debate. The history of abuse by U.S. law enforcement agencies, including John. The intrusion of the FBI, led by J. Edgar Hoover and others, and other agencies into the private lives of American citizens is a well-documented and indisputable fact.
This is why attempts to apply software to law enforcement in American cities remain met with significant public skepticism.
Palantair’s Gotham
In 2012, Palantair began collaborating with the New Orleans Police Department, enabling officers to use software similar to that used by US Special Forces and intelligence analysts in Afghanistan to predict the location of roadside bombs and apprehend bomb makers.
The challenge facing police in New Orleans and across the country was similar to that faced by the US Army in its efforts to prevent the spread of bombs and reduce casualties: an overabundance of information and a lack of the underlying software architecture to integrate and analyze it effectively. New Orleans criminal investigators and police needed a better system to piece together their knowledge of criminal networks and address gun violence. The entire police department quickly adopted Palantair’s platform, which they named Gotham.
The Problem of US Defense Procurement
The Rigidity of the US Bureaucracy
The procurement bureaucracy within the US government has become vast and entrenched, wielding immense power and influence. The process has become overly distorted and inefficient, a systemic challenge whose roots are deeply embedded in the structure.
The result is an inability to maintain rapid software iteration and development cycles, or to build any technology. This is because, including military software systems, developers and users must maintain a close relationship—emotional and even physical proximity. However, for government contractors based outside Washington, D.C., or in the suburbs of Virginia and Maryland, the US military on the front lines is as unfamiliar to them as the insurgents in Afghanistan.
An Example
During World War II, American fighter pilots frequently visited the Grumman factory in Bethpage, Long Island, New York, to submit proposals for the design and manufacture of warplanes. According to Arthur L. Herman, they offered suggestions for the F6F Hellcat, a fighter jet that later played a key role in the air battles of the Pacific War. Yet, more than half a century later, the ties between U.S. troops in Afghanistan and their suppliers have dwindled, if not completely severed.
American Patriots
America’s Founding Fathers Embraced Technology
Unlike the lawyers who dominate American politics today, many of these early leaders were well-versed in engineering and technology, even if they were not scientists themselves. John Adams, the second president of the United States, sought to prevent the nation’s early pursuit of “unprofitable sciences and the excessive preoccupation with futile curiosity” in favor of more practical exploration, including “the application of science to the advancement of agriculture.”
Innovators in the 18th and 19th centuries often possessed a broad knowledge of astronomy and geography. Their interests differed significantly from those of our modern generation, who seek depth rather than breadth.
Today, we exclude scientists from politics.
The US is hesitant about the military use of AI
A new arms race is underway among major nations around the world. Whether we realize it or not, our hesitation about the military application of artificial intelligence (AI) is severely impacting our ability to develop and deploy weapons. The threat of their actual use often underpins effective negotiations with adversaries. Our culture’s reluctance to openly pursue technological superiority may stem from our collective belief that we’ve already won.
US Dept of Defense’s Insufficient Investment in AI
The US Department of Defense has requested a total of $1.8 billion for AI by 2024, representing only 0.2% of the total $866 billion defense budget, or one-fifth of 1%.
Silicon Valley Refuses to Defense projects
Criticizing Silicon Valley Competitors
While other countries are actively developing software, many Silicon Valley engineers remain opposed to participating in the development of software with potential offensive military capabilities, including machine learning systems that can more accurately target and destroy enemies on the battlefield.
These engineers have no qualms about dedicating their careers to building algorithms that optimize ad placement on social media platforms, but they won’t develop software for the US Marine Corps.
Microsoft
In 2019, when Microsoft was considering whether to sign a defense contract with the US Army, it faced internal opposition. Microsoft had been selected to develop a virtual headset for US soldiers to plan missions and train. However, a group of employees objected to the contract and wrote an open letter to CEO Satya Nadella and President Brad Smith. They emphasized, “We’re here to work, not to develop weapons.”
Alphabet
In April 2018, Google employees protested. Subsequently, Google decided not to renew its contract with the US Department of Defense for Project Maven, a critical system designed to help analyze satellite and other imagery to plan and execute special forces operations worldwide.
More than 3,000 Google employees wrote to CEO Sundar. Signing an open letter from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, they stated, “We cannot accept developing technology for the US government that could aid in US military surveillance, with potentially deadly consequences.”
According to reports at the time, Diane Greene, who oversees Google’s cloud business, told employees that the company had decided not to further collaborate with the US military “due to significant employee backlash.” Employees expressed their stance, and company executives listened. A few days later, Jacobin magazine published an article declaring Google’s “success in the fight against US militarism,” noting that Google employees had successfully stood up against the company’s misuse of their talents.
Disdain for Silicon Valley and its tech peers
Silicon Valley cannot withstand scrutiny
The founders of many of Silicon Valley’s top companies are not amoral, but immoral. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are not lacking in idealism; in fact, they often appear ambitious and passionate. However, their idealism is thin, withers at the slightest glance, and cannot withstand scrutiny.
For decades, young founding teams have repeatedly claimed they aspire to change the world, a claim so overused that it’s become meaningless. Simply cloaked in idealism, young founders haven’t developed any deeper worldview.
The result is a network for sharing articles or sending photos.
Needs to be disrupted
For startups, or any organization seeking to challenge incumbents, the herd mentality of modern business—the reluctance to risk public disapproval—can be fatal. In 1841, Emerson published Self-Reliance, his consistent attack on religious dogmatism and the individual’s weakness in the face of institutional pressure. He reminded us, “The world whips those who are not conformist with its displeasure.” Emerson clearly identified the desire to conform to the crowd.
This is the system and the industry that Palantir, led by Alex Karp, aims to disrupt; it won’t be easy.
The Transformation Begins
Palantir Breaks with Tradition and Wins the Contract
In March 2018, the US Army announced it would choose between Raytheon and Palantir to develop its future intelligence platform. In March 2019, the Army announced that Palantir had been awarded the entire contract. This marked the first time the US government had allowed a Silicon Valley software company to lead a formal Department of Defense program, rather than leaving it to traditional military contractors.
$25 Billion to Save American Soldiers
In 2001, we sent engineers to Kandahar, Afghanistan, to build a more powerful analytical software platform for US and allied intelligence agencies. Silicon Valley’s concerns had nothing to do with Afghanistan’s mountain passes and deserts, as it had its own army of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. For the sake of Afghan soldiers, the United States spent $25 billion protecting them from roadside bombs.
Related articles
- “The value of Palantir, pros and cons of Palantir investment“
- “What kind of company is Palantir?“
- “Software hit hard by AI“
- “Some AI software vendors are starting to make money“
- “Deep Dive on SoundHound, the top AI Voice expert“
- “DeepSeek routed the global AI and stock“
- “Chinese AI progress and top companies“
- “AI Agent will be the next wave of software industry“
- “C3.ai, a position successfully artificial intelligence company“
- “Major artificial intelligence companies in US stocks market“
- “Artificial intelligence benefits industries“
- “Why software underperforming amid the AI craze?“
- “Four chip companies account for one-third of S&P 500 gains so far this year＂
- “Top five lucrative artificial lucrative intelligence listed companies
- “Consider Alphabet if you can buy one stock only to retire from it? “
- “How Microsoft makes money? What’s the next?“
- “Artificial intelligence investment trap“
- “OpenAI, the Generative Artificial Intelligence rising star and ChatGPT“
- “Zero to One“
Disclaimer
- The content of this site is the author’s personal opinions and is for reference only. I am not responsible for the correctness, opinions, and immediacy of the content and information of the article. Readers must make their own judgments.
- I shall not be liable for any damages or other legal liabilities for the direct or indirect losses caused by the readers’ direct or indirect reliance on and reference to the information on this site, or all the responsibilities arising therefrom, as a result of any investment behavior.
