reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Palantir's Meredith discusses the shift to great power competition and the need to deter the next great war. She presents a notional scenario: China conducts military exercises in the South China Sea, while ship detection models identify a buildup of fishing vessels surrounding a Taiwanese port, suggesting a potential blockade. Taiwan's semiconductor production is critical, and any disruption would be disastrous. A Chinese destroyer, the Luoyang, goes dark. Gotham projects likely paths, identifying a dangerous route towards the military exercise and Taiwanese port. Satellite coverage is insufficient, so an aircraft from Okinawa is deployed, using AI models to avoid threats and identify military equipment. The aircraft detects the Luoyang heading north. The commander considers options: sending reinforcements, a manned aircraft, or a freedom of navigation operation. They choose the latter, tasking an American ship. As the ship approaches, the blockade disbands, and the Luoyang continues without incident. Palantir Gotham aims to provide decision-making technology to protect values and make the world safer.

Directed EMP weapons have been developed, and the founder of Palantir, an AI platform used by the military, has played a significant role in revolutionizing warfare. The capability to neutralize drones was available at any moment.

Patrick Sarval is introduced as an author and expert on conspiracies, system architecture, geopolitics, and software systems. Ab Gieterink asks who Patrick Sarval is and what his expertise entails. Sarval describes himself as an IT architect, often a freelance contractor working with various control and cybernetics-oriented systems, with earlier experience including a Bitcoin startup in 2011, photography work for events, and involvement in topics around conspiracy thinking. He notes his books, including Complotcatalogus and Spiegelpaleis, and mentions Seprouter and Niburu in relation to conspiratorial topics. Gieterink references a prior interview about Complotcatalogus and another of Sarval’s books, and sets the stage to discuss Palantir, surveillance, and the internet. The conversation then shifts to explaining Palantir and its significance. Sarval emphasizes Palantir as a key element in a broader trend rather than focusing solely on the company itself. He uses science-fiction analogies to describe how data processing and artificial intelligence are evolving. In particular, he introduces the concept of a “brein” (brain) or “legion” that integrates disparate data streams, builds an ontology, and enables predictive analytics and tactical decision-making. Palantir is described as the intelligence brain that aggregates data from multiple sources to produce meaningful insights. Sarval explains that a rudimentary prototype of such a system operates under the name Lavender in Gaza, where metadata from sources like Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), cell towers, satellites, and other sensors are fed into Palantir. The system performs threat analysis, ranks threats from high to low, and then a military operator—still human—must approve the action, with about 20–25 seconds to decide whether to fire a weapon. The claim is that Palantir-like software functions as the brain behind this process, orchestrating data integration, ontology creation, data fusion, digital twins, profiling, predictions, and tactical dissemination. The discussion covers how Palantir integrates data from medical records, parking fines, phone data, WhatsApp contacts, and more, then applies an overarching data model and digital twin to simulate and project outcomes. This enables targeted marketing alongside military uses, illustrating the broad reach of the platform. Sarval notes there are two divisions within Palantir: Gotum (military) and Foundry (business models), which he mentions to illustrate the dual-use nature of the technology. He warns that the system is designed to close feedback loops, allowing it to learn and refine its outputs over time, similar to how a thermostat adjusts heating based on sensor inputs. A central concern is the risk to the rule of law and human agency. The discussion highlights the potential erosion of the presumption of innocence and due process when decisions increasingly rely on predictive models and AI. The panel considers the possibility that in a high-stress battlefield scenario, soldiers or commanders might defer to the Palantir-presented “world view,” making it harder to refuse an order. There is also concern about the shift toward autonomous weapons and the removal of human oversight in critical decisions, raising fears about the ethics and accountability of such systems. The conversation moves to the political and ideological backdrop surrounding Palantir’s leadership. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and a close circle with ties to PayPal and other tech-industry figures are discussed. Sarval characterizes Palantir’s leadership as ideologically defined, with statements about Zionism and a political worldview influencing how the technology is developed and deployed. The dialogue touches on perceived connections to broader geopolitical influence, including the role of influence campaigns, media shaping, and the involvement of powerful networks in technology development and national security. As the discussion progresses, the speakers explore the implications of advanced AI and the “new generative AI” era. They consider the nature of AI and the potential for it to act not just as a data processor but as a decision-maker with emergent properties that challenge human control. The concept of pre-crime—predicting and acting on potential future threats before they materialize—is discussed as a troubling possibility, especially when a machine’s probability-based judgments guide life-and-death actions. Towards the end, the conversation contemplates what a fully dominated surveillance state might look like, including cognitive warfare and personalized influence through media, ads, and social networks. The dialogue returns to questions about how far Palantir and similar systems have penetrated international security programs, with speculation about Gaza, NATO adoption, and commercial uses beyond military applications. The speakers acknowledge the possibility of multiple trajectories and emphasize the need for checks and balances, transparency, and critical reflection on the power such systems confer upon a relatively small group of technologists and influencers. They conclude with a nod to the transformative and potentially dystopian future of AI-enabled surveillance and decision-making, cautioning against unbridled expansion and urging vigilance.

- The conversation opens with concerns about AGI, ASI, and a potential future in which AI dominates more aspects of life. They describe a trend of sleepwalking into a new reality where AI could be in charge of everything, with mundane jobs disappearing within three years and more intelligent jobs following in the next seven years. Sam Altman’s role is discussed as a symbol of a system rather than a single person, with the idea that people might worry briefly and then move on. - The speakers critique Sam Altman, arguing that Altman represents a brand created by a system rather than an individual, and they examine the California tech ecosystem as a place where hype and money flow through ideation and promises. They contrast OpenAI’s stated mission to “protect the world from artificial intelligence” and “make AI work for humanity” with what they see as self-interested actions focused on users and competition. - They reflect on social media and the algorithmic feed. They discuss YouTube Shorts as addictive and how they use multiple YouTube accounts to train the algorithm by genre (AI, classic cars, etc.) and by avoiding unwanted content. They note becoming more aware of how the algorithm can influence personal life, relationships, and business, and they express unease about echo chambers and political division that may be amplified by AI. - The dialogue emphasizes that technology is a force with no inherent polity; its impact depends on the intent of the provider and the will of the user. They discuss how social media content is shaped to serve shareholders and founders, the dynamics of attention and profitability, and the risk that the content consumer becomes sleepwalking. They compare dating apps’ incentives to keep people dating indefinitely with the broader incentive structures of social media. - The speakers present damning statistics about resource allocation: trillions spent on the military, with a claim that reallocating 4% of that to end world hunger could achieve that goal, and 10-12% could provide universal healthcare or end extreme poverty. They argue that a system driven by greed and short-term profit undermines the potential benefits of AI. - They discuss OpenAI and the broader AI landscape, noting OpenAI’s open-source LLMs were not widely adopted, and arguing many promises are outcomes of advertising and market competition rather than genuine humanity-forward outcomes. They contrast DeepMind’s work (Alpha Genome, Alpha Fold, Alpha Tensor) and Google’s broader mission to real science with OpenAI’s focus on user growth and market position. - The conversation turns to geopolitics and economics, with a focus on the U.S. vs. China in the AI race. They argue China will likely win the AI race due to a different, more expansive, infrastructure-driven approach, including large-scale AI infrastructure for supply chains and a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts” in trade and technology dominance. They discuss other players like Europe, Korea, Japan, and the UAE, noting Europe’s regulatory approach and China’s ability to democratize access to powerful AI (e.g., DeepSea-like models) more broadly. - They explore the implications of AI for military power and warfare. They describe the AI arms race in language models, autonomous weapons, and chip manufacturing, noting that advances enable cheaper, more capable weapons and the potential for a global shift in power. They contrast the cost dynamics of high-tech weapons with cheaper, more accessible AI-enabled drones and warfare tools. - The speakers discuss the concept of democratization of intelligence: a world where individuals and small teams can build significant AI capabilities, potentially disrupting incumbents. They stress the importance of energy and scale in AI competitions, and warn that a post-capitalist or new economic order may emerge as AI displaces labor. They discuss universal basic income (UBI) as a potential social response, along with the risk that those who control credit and money creation—through fractional reserve banking and central banking—could shape a new concentrated power structure. - They propose a forward-looking framework: regulate AI use rather than AI design, address fake deepfakes and workforce displacement, and promote ethical AI development. They emphasize teaching ethics to AI and building ethical AIs, using human values like compassion, respect, and truth-seeking as guiding principles. They discuss the idea of “raising Superman” as a metaphor for aligning AI with well-raised, ethical ends. - The speakers reflect on human nature, arguing that while individuals are capable of great kindness, the system (media, propaganda, endless division) distracts and polarizes society. They argue that to prepare for the next decade, humanity should verify information, reduce gullibility, and leverage AI for truth-seeking while fostering humane behavior. They see a paradox: AI can both threaten and enhance humanity, and the outcome depends on collective choices, governance, and ethical leadership. - In closing, they acknowledge their shared hope for a future of abundant, sustainable progress—Peter Diamandis’ vision of abundance—with a warning that current systemic incentives could cause a painful transition. They express a desire to continue the discussion, pursue ethical AI development, and encourage proactive engagement with governments and communities to steer AI’s evolution toward greater good.

AI is being developed for military planning, such as in the Thunder Forge program, to automate processes and accelerate decision-making. The goal is to shift from humans in the loop to humans on the loop, where AI agents perform tasks and humans verify them. AI agents can accelerate intelligence gathering, operational planning, and tactical decision-making. For example, if an unexpected ship appears, AI systems analyze sensor data to understand the situation and propose courses of action. These actions are then run through simulations to predict outcomes, providing commanders with a briefing on potential consequences. This process, which currently takes hours, could take days for humans. While AI won't make recommendations to avoid commanders sleepwalking, the concern is that if adversaries like China and Russia develop similar capabilities, conflicts could become psychological, relying heavily on the quality of intel. Gaining this AI capability even a year ahead of adversaries would provide a significant advantage, like taking ten moves for every one move an opponent makes. Once the capabilities equalize, conflict will rely on adversarial intel and capabilities.

The segment centers on a US-led Civil-Military Coordination Center in southern Israel, established in October 2025 to monitor the Gaza ceasefire. It showcases a map of the Strip, footage of trucks, and a Dataminer report. Dataminer is a private US tech company that uses artificial intelligence to mine social media in real time to issue warnings of critical situations, highlighting the growing relationship between private AI firms and militaries and signaling a structural shift in how warfare is conducted, who controls it, who profits, and how accountability works. Heidi Khalaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, explains that militaries rely too heavily on commercial technologies and are not investing in their own traceable, explainable models, instead using a “black box.” Gaza provides the first confirmation that commercial AI models are being directly used in warfare, justified by speed at the cost of accuracy. The report asserts that Israel’s war in Gaza was not driven solely by soldiers but also by data prediction, location tracking, drone feeds, and AI models built by private tech firms. Palantir is described as a key player, with reports claiming they supplied AI tools to help identify and accelerate targeting of individuals in Gaza, though Palantir has denied these claims. Amazon and Google are said to have provided Israel with cloud infrastructure needed for military AI systems; both companies maintain their services are commercial, not military. These tools are said to have shifted the war from human intelligence to a data industry. While defense contracting is not new, earlier conflicts such as the 2003 US invasion of Iraq relied more on informants and interrogations; AI then involved a human in the loop, with clearer military applications. Now, the line between commercial and military use of AI is blurred, and corporations play a larger role. A key question raised is what it means when a private AI company controls the infrastructure the military depends on, rather than the state. Khalaf notes that militaries are ceding control and state obligations to faulty technology developed by private companies with different incentives, which can lead to AI being used to evade accountability for mass civilian casualties due to model inaccuracy. The analysis concludes that war is no longer just a battlefield—it is also about who builds and controls the software governing mass civilian data.

Wing Inflatables, a company supplying navy seals and coast guard, has been ordered to double production by government contractors. Workers are shocked as the CEO seeks help to meet the demand. Taiwanese officials have been seen at their headquarters, hinting at potential conflict with China in Taiwan soon.

George Bibi and Vlad discuss the United States’ evolving grand strategy in a multipolar world and the key choices facing Washington, Europe, Russia, and China. - The shift from the post–Cold War hegemonic peace is framed as undeniable: a new international distribution of power requires the U.S. to adjust its approach, since balancing all great powers is impractical and potentially unfavorable. - The U.S. previously pursued a hegemonic peace with ambitions beyond capabilities, aiming to transform other countries toward liberal governance and internal reengineering. This was described as beyond America’s reach and not essential to global order or U.S. security, leading to strategic insolvency: objectives outpaced capabilities. - The Trump-era National Security Strategy signals a reorientation: U.S. priorities must begin with the United States itself—its security, prosperity, and ability to preserve republican governance. Foreign policy should flow from that, implying consolidation or retrenchment and a focus on near-term priorities. - Geography becomes central: what happens in the U.S. Western Hemisphere is most important, followed by China, then Europe, and then other regions. The United States is returning to a traditional view that immediate neighborhood concerns matter most, in a world that is now more polycentric. - In a multipolar order, there must be a balance of power and reasonable bargains with other great powers to protect U.S. interests without provoking direct conflict. Managing the transition will be messy and require careful calibration of goals and capabilities. - Europe’s adjustment is seen as lagging. Absent Trump’s forcing mechanism, Europe would maintain reliance on U.S. security while pursuing deeper integration and outward values. The U.S. cannot afford to be Europe’s security benefactor in a multipolar order and needs partners who amplify rather than diminish U.S. power. - Europe is criticized as a liability in diplomacy and defense due to insufficient military investment and weak capability to engage with Russia. European self-doubt and fear of Russia hinder compromising where necessary. Strengthening Europe’s political health and military capabilities is viewed as essential for effective diplomacy and counterbalancing China and Russia. - The Ukraine conflict is tied to broader strategic paradigms: Europe’s framing of the war around World War II and unconditional surrender undermines possible compromises. A compromise that protects Ukraine’s vital interests while acknowledging Russia’s security concerns could prevent disaster and benefit Europe’s future security and prosperity. - U.S.–Europe tensions extend beyond Ukraine to governance ideals, trade, internet freedom, and speech regulation. These issues require ongoing dialogue to manage differences while maintaining credible alliances. - The potential for U.S.–Russia normalization is discussed: the Cold War-style ideological confrontation is largely over, with strategic incentives to prevent Russia and China from forming a closer alliance. Normalizing relations would give Russia more autonomy and reduce dependence on China, though distrust remains deep and domestic U.S. institutions would need to buy in. - China’s role is addressed within a framework of competition, deterrence, and diplomacy. The United States aims to reduce vulnerability to Chinese pressure in strategic minerals, supply chains, and space/sea lines, while engaging China to establish mutually acceptable rules and prevent spirals into direct confrontation. - A “grand bargain” or durable order is proposed: a mix of competition, diplomacy, and restraint that avoids domination or coercion, seeking an equilibrium that both the United States and China can live with.

The transcript surveys Palantir’s rise as a powerful data analytics company intertwined with government and military aims, emphasizing how fear, surveillance, and control have shaped its growth and public image. It frames Palantir as aiming to become “the ultimate military contractor and the ultimate arbiter of all of our data,” with its software described as enabling governments and major institutions to collect, analyze, and act on vast datasets, including in war zones. Key points include: - Palantir’s positioning and clients: The company claims it can revolutionize government systems with AI-powered data analysis and has been hired by the Department of Defense, the FBI, local police, the IRS, and other entities, including non-government customers like Wendy’s. Its business model is described as transforming “information those organizations collect, collect even more information, and use that data to draw conclusions.” - The kill chain concept and AI: Palantir’s tech is linked to the “kill chain,” a military term for the series of decisions leading to targeting and potentially taking life. Palantir’s contract adds AI to this chain, making it “quicker and better and safer and more violent.” - Founding story and rhetoric: Palantir traces its origins to a PayPal-connected network (the “PayPal mafia”) and to Alex Karp, who studied neoclassical social theory, with the company named after Tolkien’s Palantir. Middle-earth imagery is used to juxtapose potential good versus dangerous power. - Data, surveillance, and ontology: The software is described as capable of reconfiguring an organization’s ontology—what systems matter, what information matters, how processes are structured, and what biases are introduced. - Inside views and ethics: A former Palantir employee, Juan, explains his departure and later criticisms after observing the Israeli invasion of Gaza; Palantir’s involvement with the Israeli Defense Forces is noted, though contract details are opaque. The claim is that Palantir’s AI may have been used for target selection. - Revenue and focus on government: In 2024 Palantir earned nearly $2.9 billion, with 55% from government sources, most of it American. Palantir’s CTO Sham Sankar is cited with a Defense Reformation rhetoric that aligns with the Defense Innovation Board’s push to fund emerging tech, suggesting a fusion of defense spending and Palantir’s growth. - Domination and market strategy: Palantir is depicted as striving to be the “US government’s central operating system,” with Doge (an internal effort) aimed at unifying data across agencies like the IRS and Health and Human Services, potentially giving one contractor broad access to Americans’ data and health records. - Corporate culture and risk: The company is described as comfortable being unpopular, with leaders like Peter Thiel investing heavily and having a role in politics; Karp emphasizes civil liberties in terms of lawful use of government data and its potential misapplication. - Ethical tension and viewpoint: The piece notes that Palantir’s reach could enable governance by algorithm and automated decision-making, potentially reshaping personal lives, battlefields, and governance. The founders’ ownership structure preserves control through class voting shares. - Final reflections: The speakers argue that criticizing the system is fraught because watching and fear can silence dissent, and warn against replacing a broken system with an even more broken one, urging vigilance over who wields powerful data and AI.

Amanda meets someone who warns her about the patterns governing the world and the impending danger. They discuss the infiltration of critical US services by hackers affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army. The goal seems to be to create chaos in logistical systems and collect information that could be weaponized in a conflict. The targets include Texas's power grid, a water utility in Hawaii, a West Coast port, and oil and gas pipelines. The Chinese cyber army aims to disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure to prevent US power projection into Asia and cause societal chaos.

The discussion centers on Palantir Technologies and a proposed March 2025 executive order that would require federal agencies to share and control data, aiming to centralize government data using Palantir’s Foundry platform. It is claimed that Palantir has already deployed Foundry in at least four agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, and that the company has received over $113 million in federal contracts since Trump took office, with a recent $795 million Department of Defense contract. The speakers allege that the initiative could enable a comprehensive database on all Americans—“light years beyond Real ID, the Patriot Act, and Prism”—and that those who control it seek “complete power over you and everyone else.” They warn of mass surveillance and privacy violations, lack of oversight, and potential political abuse. Key concerns include the breadth of data that Palantir’s system could merge, such as bank accounts, medical records, driving records, student debt, disability status, political affiliation, credit card expenditures, online purchases, tax filings, and travel and phone records, creating “detailed profiles on every single American.” The speakers argue this centralization would enable unchecked monitoring with “zero oversight,” increasing data security risks and the potential for breaches, leaks, or mismanagement. They emphasize a history of opaqueness in Palantir’s operations and tie the company’s AI tools to predictive policing and military applications lacking public accountability. They cite Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp as having controversial views and describe the firm as aligned with a profit-driven push for technomilitarism. The talk links Palantir to broader power dynamics, including ties to Elon Musk’s and Peter Thiel’s spheres, and suggests a technocratic oligarchy could emerge that prioritizes corporate and political agendas over public interest. While acknowledging stated goals like fraud detection and national security, the speakers assert the lack of checks and balances, and fear that the surveillance infrastructure would be embedded to be expanded by future governments. The “kill chain” terminology is discussed both in military and cyber contexts, with Palantir’s Gotham platform described as designed to shorten the kill chain by fusing large datasets into actionable intelligence, enabling faster targeting decisions. They provide examples like the use of Palantir to improve the accuracy and speed of Ukraine’s artillery strikes and, publicly, the Israeli Defense Forces’ use for striking targets in Gaza. The segment also mentions Palantir’s use in predictive policing, including tools used by the Los Angeles Police Department, and argues that Palantir aims to track “everybody, not just immigrants.” The speakers conclude that this centralized system is “light years beyond Real ID, the Patriot Act, or Prism” and advocate resisting it and “thinking of ways we can break the links in the kill chain.”