In a 2019 op-ed in the Washington Post, the CEO of Palantir decried the monopolistic power of tech CEOs and corporate ideologies on government, all the while defending his company's role in contentious dealings with ICE and other ethically spurious groups. When viewed through a critical lens, his arguments are fundamentally underwhelming.
Palantir is a technology company focusing on artificial intelligence best known for its tenuous ethics, having a lengthy "controversies" section on Wikipedia. Co-founded by CEO Alex Karp and others, most notably investor Peter Thiel (known for his numerous political donations) the company has been heavily involved in providing AI/ML services to various governments. Simply from the ostentatious title, “I’m a tech CEO, and I don’t think tech CEOs should be making policy”, Karp isn’t exactly subtle about the fact that he is attempting to use his position at Palantir to reinforce his rhetorical ethos and add credibility to his argument. Karp is certainly qualified to be writing on this subject, to be sure. His position as the chief executive at a multibillion dollar tech company has undoubtedly given him insight into the inner workings of Silicon Valley.
It is strange, then, that the crux of his argument consists of attacking a larger tech company for backing out of a deal with the US government due to ethical and PR concerns. He criticizes Google for pulling out of a lucrative contract for the Pentagon’s Project Maven after widespread employee backlash and threats of resignation. Project Maven involved the use of AI to analyze aerial imagery, resulting in information that could ultimately be used for lethal purposes. Many Google employees and AI ethicists sounded the alarm on this project, believing it to be an effective weaponization of AI. After over 4,000 Google employees signed a petition asking the company to withdraw from the project, the company decided not to renew the contract. They also created AI principles that the company’s future development would abide by, one of which stated that they would not weaponize AI.
Karp says that while the dissent in the company was fine, the fact that the company actually listened to this dissent was wrong. He introduces a comparison of a young Marine recruit not agreeing with every mission but still doing their duty, and then says tech companies should also do this when working with the government: “Giving in to this pressure will have the perverse effect of undermining...democratic principles...the U.S. Marine serves; the Silicon Valley executives walk. This is wrong.” He posits that it is somehow undemocratic for companies to...listen to their employees. On the contrary, Google listening to the concerns of their employees is quite a democractic action.
He posits that it is somehow undemocratic for companies to...listen to their employees.
To his credit, Karp begins by identifying a very real problem in the concentration of power held by a “small group of executives at the largest Internet companies in Silicon Valley.” This is indeed a pertinent issue in modern society and critical discourse must be had on this topic. Karp is correct to call this out and it is heartening seeing one of the CEOs of a large tech company bringing light to it. Unfortunately, this serious problem is perverted into a diatribe about uncritical devotion to the government, which is not much better than the original problem. To criticize “big tech” and then hone in on a rare occurrence where one of the largest tech companies in the world pulled out of a project due to ethical concerns is ludicrous. The remainder of the article consists of Karp responding to the obvious discounting of the article that would come from Palantir’s own extensive involvement with ethically questionable government projects.
He begins the final portion of the piece by highlighting the good he claims Palantir’s technology has been used for, such as fighting genocide. He then addresses perhaps the most infamous project in the company’s history: the ICE contract. Though the company has, in prior statements, vigorously defended the involvement of their machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms in deportation proceedings and similarly sordid affairs, Karp simply describes the situation as complex and doesn’t really address or defend the ethics of these business dealings. I know first-hand how powerful AI & Machine Learning can be. In my work, I've seen the unprecedented capacity for change these technologies can bring. By the same virtue, they can also foster devastating amounts of harm. It is of the utmost importance to use AI responsibly and ethically, and develop clear, well-defined principles for doing so.
Rather than elaborating on vague notions of AI ethics, Karp talks about how he is “sympathetic” to a group of protestors that is outside Palantir’s office weekly to protest their involvement with ICE, but that such matters should be decided by elected officials and the courts. In the meantime, it appears Palantir will keep providing the government whatever it needs. In his constant decrying of the tech companies “strong-arm[ing]” the government and repeated proclamations of the need of political issues to be handled solely by elected officials, Karp never once brings attention to the hyper-capitalistic culture of modern America that gave corporations so much power in society and government in the first place—and made Palantir what it is today.