"Mounting frustration around the disconnect between increasingly intelligent models and their ability to produce useful real-world results." "Less about winning individual software applications and more about becoming the common data, AI, and deployment layer." "Prioritizing customer depth, not quantity." we’re doing it! $PLTR

Goldman gets it: "The TAM may be setting up for another step function change in depth, because of the shift to sovereign AI, bespoke applications, and Palantir's newer verticalization strategy." "The FDE model is more than simply hiring FDEs; it requires tight feedback loops between field and product, which Palantir has perfected to the point of being able to automate via AI FDEs."

Same pattern at L3Harris. “AI is a commodity. It’s all about the data.” They had a country-of-origin workflow on frontier models. Fine-tuned open-source models on their own data. Beat the frontier models in under 48 hours. $23B in sales. Decades of proprietary knowledge. L3 owns the Ontology, the compute, the model. L3 owns the advantage.

Counterexample from @nvidia's own supply chain: They post-trained the smallest model, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, and it outperformed Nemotron 3 Ultra on predictive correctness “by a large gap.” Retraining on 1 GPU, a couple of hours. Nemo + Palantir Ontology + Autopilot, running on-prem because the data is sensitive. A governed learning loop beats “just wait for the next general model” when the work is operational, private, and continuous.

"Enterprise AI adoption is earlier than you think." "AIP is nowhere near saturated." "Selling the dream… Palantir executing on those ideas with operationally proven technology." Decades of data tools Same silos Different outcome

A new essay from Nicholas Zamiska, our board director and co-author of The Technological Republic, published in @newcriterion. A brief summary with excerpts below. 1. It feels as if war is on the rise. And yet it isn’t. Our country’s national power, for all of the challenges of wielding it justly, has been an enormously benevolent, and indeed pacifying, force in the world over the past century. 2. The allure of soft power alone is not enough. The unwavering assumption that the moral appeal of liberal-democratic regimes, including our own, would, without military investment, win over our geopolitical adversaries and prompt the end of war has been a mistake. 3. A far more radical reshaping of Europe’s military capabilities is required. The starting point for the articulation of a strategy would be to assume that an alliance of any two out of the three largest and wealthiest European democracies—that is, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—should be capable of decisively repelling a land invasion by Russia of Eastern Europe without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons or relying on material support from the United States. 4. In the United States, an ambivalence remains among subsets of Silicon Valley engineers in investing and building the next generation of defense capabilities. And yet is there no place for some degree of deference to our democratic system, in which policymakers appointed by officials elected by the public, and within constraints imposed by the Constitution, determine what is and is not in the national interest? Why should our nation’s largest technology companies displace the wisdom and verdict of the American people? 5. We essentially shrug as a society when the technology giants build entire business models around what amounts to an Orwellian consumer surveillance state. And yet the construction of software that advances our national security, including artificial-intelligence systems—software that gives U.S. forces a decisive advantage over our adversaries—that we have built at Palantir becomes a political flashpoint. 6. Some of the largest technological empires in the history of human civilization are essentially advertising companies. The irony is that those who resist further investment in defense and are most skeptical of collaboration between the technology sector and the state have often simply incentivized the hordes of technical talent and capital rushing to the software industry to pursue far less fraught endeavors, optimizing advertising algorithms and developing ostensibly novel ways of sharing videos and photographs on our phones, fostering arms races of other sorts, for likes and clicks. 7. We should, as a culture, be wary of rewarding those who instinctively prize the path of least resistance. If you have no unpopular views, if you sense no areas of divergence between yourself and those around you, even those whom you hold dearest, you might not have many authentic views at all. 8. Several generations now of ambitious and talented minds across the country have recoiled from public life and turned away from government work. The risk is that the Kennedys of today, the flawed and complex yet rich personalities who may have something to offer our fragile experiment in self-government, simply find their way to Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, and Google. 9. The unforgiving scrutiny to which we subject those in public life may have simply yielded less than we hoped. We are left instead with what often seems to be an odd roster of seemingly empty vessels, opportunists looking for a cause and seeking higher office.

Alex Karp says the reason Palantir has been so successful is because of their willingness to be "non-mimetic": "When the whole world said software had to be worthless—we built platforms that worked." "When the whole world said you couldn't extend it with FDEs—we built FDEs." "When the whole world is saying build AI slop without an ontology that allows you to put truths into the ontology and produce actual results—we stuck to our guns." "And what did we get? We got these results."

Progress in technology is all about breaking false tradeoffs. Palantir, has been forged, from the beginning, to help critical institutions leverage the accelerating power of digital computation without sacrificing their sovereignty or the sovereignty of their constituents. This was prescient and is more important than ever. As, today, some in Silicon Valley believe "commoditizing your complement" means commoditizing institutions and humanity itself. In some sense, the effective accelerationists of Silicon Valley believe technology is God and the effective altruists believe they are God. The former believe that sufficiently powerful technology will automatically organize society in the way that threads the needle between the Antichrist and Armageddon, and the latter believe they are the only ones capable of creating technology and organizing society in a way that threads that needle—convienently, according to their own utility function! The AI successionists don’t even care whether we thread that needle at all. Palantir gives us a different option: technology as an unapologetic accelerant of human curiosity and agency, yes, but also of institutional fitness. In this view, we don't have to surrender our economic sovereignty to an all-knowing model, nor cede our moral authority to the unelected engineers in SF and the well-meaning, but generally histrionic “philosophers” in Berkeley who built it. Instead, we can use ever-more powerful computation to make the pro-human institutions we select (through free markets and the democratic process), and therefore our society, radically more capable and resilient.

AI deployment is not the hard part The hard part is connecting powerful computation to local institutional knowledge in realtime........without destroying the institution’s sovereignty This is what Palantir is doing great read: @lefttailguy and @ByrneHobart

guys: I am going to run models on my home lab so no one has access to my most sensitive data. Same guy after latest tool drops: oh you want root access to my computer, texts, photos, bank accounts, sure! guys it’s “free”! 🤦‍♂️