While Palantir, Peter Thiel’s company, asks not to stop the race towards AI, Anthropic wants alliances between governments
It is a clash with deep political undertones that is taking place in the United States in the shadow of the debate on AI. The CEO of Palantir, Alex Karpdistanced himself from the proposal, put forward by Dario Amodeito slow down the development of artificial intelligence due to the catastrophic risks it would entail.
«If we didn’t have adversaries, I would be very in favor of completely suspending this technology, but we do. It cannot be suspended,” he said. The reference was obviously to the competition with China.
After all, it is no mystery that Peter Thiel has always opposed regulations in the technology sector, arguing that they would weaken Washington’s competitive ability against Beijing.
It is no coincidence that, during the Roman conferences he held in March, Thiel argued that the antichrist would aim to take power by leveraging the fear of Armageddon: his objective, the president of Palantir argued, would be to create a world state, based on rules and controls that would curb technological development.
It’s hard not to see such a vision as antithetical to Anthropic’s approach. He was a former researcher of this company, Jacob Coxonarguing that AI could destroy humanity within a few years.
And it was Amodei to call for a slowdown in the development of this technology, asking for an exemption from antitrust legislation that allows players in the sector to coordinate to safeguard the security of artificial intelligence. This is a line also supported by OpenAI which, just the day before yesterday, announced that it had found six cases of “unexpected or worrying behavior of AI models”.
Without neglecting that Amodei he also hoped that, again with regard to the development of artificial intelligence, “the USA and other democratic governments will try to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent that this is possible”.
Translated: the regulations of the sector should, according to him, also be adopted in agreement with Beijing. A position very distant from that of Thiel And Karp. Now, a certain narrative tends to paint Palantir as the emblem of the so-called “techno-right”, which would go against the ethical and responsible approach of Amodei.
In reality, the situation is more complex. First of all, it is not at all certain that Anthropic’s line – which was also criticized by Microsoft’s AI manager – Mustafa Suleyman – is exactly altruistic. According to the president of the Federal Trade Commission, Andrew Fergusonthe company of Amodeiwith the excuse of the apocalypse, would aim to circumvent antitrust regulations to arrive at a cartel with other companies in the technology sector.
This is a concern also raised by Alvaro Bedoyawhich was in the Federal Trade Commission at the time of Joe Biden. Secondly, there is a political clash. Thiel is considered very close to JD Vancewhose presidential ambitions for 2028 are well known. Amodeion the other hand, is historically a Dem supporter and, in 2024, supported Kamala Harris.
It is therefore no coincidence that Barack Obama relaunched Anthropic’s catastrophist narrative. The former American president, who hopes to once again carve out the role of great director of Asinello for the 2028 presidential elections, hopes to ensure that – through Amodei – the Democratic Party can mend ties with those big tech companies that, in recent years, had moved closer to the Republican orbit.
Not to mention that both the dems and Anthropic are riding the catastrophism also to accommodate the hostile feelings towards data centers, currently much favored by the Americans: the Donkey does it to strike Trump in view of Midterms, Amodei to curry favor with the US market in anticipation of the stock market listing.
Then there is also a Vatican question. It is true that the Holy See looks with suspicion at Palantir, while the co-founder of Anthropic, Christopher Olahwas, in May, among the speakers at the presentation conference of Magnificent Humanitas in the Vatican. However, it is equally true that, in his encyclical, Leo XIVwhile calling for rules and underlining the risks, has not embraced a catastrophist vision of AI.
Finally, the logic in which must be understood Donald Trump it’s moving. In November, the occupant of the White House launched the Genesis Mission: an initiative in the field of AI that “will drastically accelerate scientific discoveries, strengthen national security, guarantee energy dominance.” This is a sort of Manhattan Project 2.0, which explains the strategic importance of artificial intelligence in the president’s eyes.
Not surprisingly, Trump does not espouse a total line deregulation. If anything, it wants companies in the sector to take Washington’s geopolitical objectives into account and, in the name of competition with Beijing, avoids imposing regulations considered excessive on them. In short, the “techno-right” has its controversial aspects, but it also follows a concrete geostrategic logic.
At the same time, the “alliance” between Amodei And Obama suggests the emergence of a “techno-left” intolerant of antitrust legislation. Maybe this is also what we should start talking about. Not without concern.
