Palantir is clearly a mind-boggling on-the-nose, but terrible name to those familiar with the book.
The Palantiri consistently provided their users technically accurate intelligence that lead to disastrous strategic decisions.
Denethor committed suicide out of despair, after a palantir showed him the black fleet approaching, but he did not know that it was actually Aragorn who had captured the fleet and was coming with reinforcements.
We don't know specifically how the palantir deceived Saruman, but it's pretty clear it was one of the key factors in his corruption and downfall.
And even Sauron himself was misled in this way! The palantir showed him, correctly, that a hobbit and Aragorn were at Helm's Deep, and he concluded that Aragorn had the ring. So he prematurely moved his armies out of Mordor and left the plains and Mt Doom unguarded, which permitted the destruction of the ring.
I honestly can't think of a worse name for a company that provides intel for strategic decision making.
I've pointed this out before, but there's an interview clip of Alex Karp saying that Trump won the election in a landslide[0].
If you look at the actual numbers, no one, with any idea of mathematics or statistics or even just basic analysis skills, would call Trump's election victory a landslide.
It calls into question the fundamental raisin d'etre of Palantir. It makes Palantir look like a pure propaganda tool.
Therefore, also entirely useless for strategic decision making.
Well you could just say ”purpose” rather than ”reason of existence” in French. Some expression of course only exist in French - about 70% of English language - but the purpose of this francoism I never quite understood.
I don’t know why we keep platforming these people. Go interview a normal person with normal thoughts. Karp is one of the most vile, insensitive, and immoral people in charge of anything tech. Just ignore him and his antics.
It’s easy to explain once you realize the real ideology of these people is money. Even if they have other internal beliefs they’ll get buried under the desire to make more money.
Money is just a metric. I'd say their real ideology is power. It's the classic authoritarian delusion that has fueled every "web 2.0" startup, now writ large - it's okay if we centralize power, because we will only ever use the power for good. Of course this completely ignores how power agglomerates in the real world, especially in the presence of the strong Moloch attractor accelerator that is state-orchestrated capitalism (why it's tempting to focus critiques on money).
And ironically (or not), this overarching dynamic is exactly the core lesson of the One Ring! It's like their main takeaway from the books was "having that ring would be awesome!!1!".
Maybe the facile fascination with Tolkien comes from having read them too early in life, before they were able to understand adult concepts like burden ? If you think of Frodo as merely having to do some chore that The Adults are making him do, then at least he gets to play with some pretty awesome toys and see some pretty cool stuff. And this would seem to be the level of moral development underpinning the contemporary neofascist movement (or "autocratic authoritarian", for those who are triggered by the F-word).
But Karp, Steinberger told me, needed “to find a reason beyond just opportunism and necessity” to embrace Trumpism. His reasoning, however, is so incoherent it seems pretextual.
Toward the end of the book, Steinberger quotes Karp lambasting the left for failing to adequately address antisemitism, chaos at the border and the threat of Iran. “I’m sick and tired of left-wing people fostering right-wing populist movements because they won’t be adults about these issues,” said Karp. That is perfectly cogent as a centrist critique of progressives. As a justification for aligning with a right-wing populist movement, it’s bizarre.
"Woke" was originally about waking up to the fact that America was built on systemic racism (which is absolutely the case), but was then artfully redefined by the Right as "shrill liberal nonsense" that is designed to be completely vague and amorphous so that it satisfies the desire for "librul tears" and cannot be defended because there's no specific points to defend.
So by stating they are "anti-woke" they just mean "New! Improved! 100% Librul Tears!". It's intellectually fraudulent and just spiteful.
Might be a hint that a lot of tech/SV signalling was just "woke capitalism" the whole time, and they dropped the pretense the moment it became politically advantageous.
Tech was never woke. It's a boys club and on the "good" side was geeky nerds who just cared about hacking and the "bad" side about financial velociraptors hunting money. Nothing woke about that.
Well, Aragorn used the information he got from the Palantir of Orthanc to make a correct and very important strategic decision, to take the Paths of the Dead so that he could stop the Corsairs in time to save Minas Tirith.
So the lesson is that you have to use the intel you get wisely, or else very bad things will happen. I'm not sure if that makes the name any better for the tool it's applied to, though.
The actual lesson was that you need to be the trueborn king who can claim the palantiri by birthright if you want to use them for good. Even then, it requires great effort. Bad things will happen if anyone else tries to use the palantiri, no matter how great and powerful they are.
> The actual lesson was that you need to be the trueborn king who can claim the palantiri by birthright if you want to use them for good.
Not really. Denethor was the trueborn steward, whose ancestor had been officially appointed by the King, and though it isn't mentioned in the Lord of the Rings, the essay on the Palantiri in Unfinished Tales says that stewards were often deputized to use the Palantiri. So Denethor had the right to use the Palantir of Minas Tirith. But he didn't have the wisdom to realize that Sauron was manipulating what he saw.
Denethor is described as wise and strong-willed (unlike the caricature seen in the movies). He knows Sauron is trying to manipulate him, but he believes his strength and legitimacy will let him prevail. It's the same belief Aragorn has, and it's mostly correct. Denethor benefits greatly from the information gained using the palantir. But because his claim is weaker than Aragorn's and because he keeps using it repeatedly over the decades, it eventually corrupts him and leads him to his doom.
I agree that the movie portrayal was totally unlike the Denethor in the books.
> He knows Sauron is trying to manipulate him
To some extent, yes. But I'm not sure he fully realizes what's going on. For example, he sees the fleet with black sails coming up Anduin--but he didn't see any of the events that led to that fleet being taken over by Aragorn and his followers? He could have.
> because his claim is weaker than Aragorn's
I don't think this is given as a cause of Denethor's doom in the books.
> because he keeps using it repeatedly over the decades
Of course there isn't one; the notion of the "rightful king" in Middle-Earth does not have a real world counterpart.
Tolkien might have believed it did, since he was a Catholic and might have believed in some version of the divine right of kings that the church supported for many centuries. But even then, the power the "rightful king" has in Middle-Earth is very limited. There is no hint that Aragorn, once he becomes King, micromanages everything in Gondor or makes rules by royal decree about everything, or even any very great number of things. The only actual official acts of his that are described are making peace with the Haradrim and the Easterlings, giving Sauron's freed servants the lands about Lake Nurnen, and pronouncing judgments of particular cases, of which Beregond's is the last. He certainly doesn't seem to be dictating what everyone in Gondor should do in their daily lives. Nor is there any hint that previous Kings did any such thing.
And even Tolkien's real world attitudes weren't necessarily monarchist. In a letter to his son, he wrote:
"The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity..."
If this espouses any kind of political view, it's libertarianism.
A bullied kid finds refuge in sci-fi and fantasy books. This kid builds a mental fantasy world where they get revenge on their tormentors. In this mental fantasy world, every self-serving thing they do is “righteous”, because it undoes the harm that was done to them. Their manifesto is a mish-mash of ideas from the books, but twisted to make them into the good guy.
Some of these kids eventually grow up and meet people who are kind to them. They find positive lessons in real human social interactions. They leave their protective fantasy bubble behind. They eventually learn to seek justice where there was injustice.
Others never grow up. They end up seeking to fight injustice with a new form of injustice. Only this time, they get to be the tormentor.
Its cellphones ? They show the rulers accurate predictions of human behaviour after the the fall of the towers proofed that the left only had enbarassing cofabulations to explain behaviour at scale. Thats the most valuable thing you can gain out of social network sensor data.
>I honestly can't think of a worse name for a company that provides intel for strategic decision making.
Yet the choice is very effective at telling those with eyes to see that the one who chose the name possesses only a surface-level understanding of what appears to be his favorite piece of literature.
Or he's broadcasting his intention to destroy world governments and institute a new global order under technocratic control. He's banking on a US General not understanding the deeper lore behind of the name.
Well if the stories where realistic the shire would overproduce people in 3 generation and then export miserable mercenaries ala afghanistan for the rest of days.
You seem to be attacking a different statement that no one says: "if the product isn't free, you aren't the product". There's no "if and only if" in the maxim.
Pretty sure you agree that if the product is free, the company is definitely getting value by monetizing something else of yours. It very much is true as written.
But the context of the parent's and grandparent's comments was (paraphrased) "if you don't pay, you're the product, therefore it makes sense to pay in this case". But given what we know of Meta and their ilk, we have good reason to believe this is absolutely NOT the case: you'll pay but you'll still be the product, and their offerings will keep on the road to enshitification. So parent comment is correct given this context.
I don't believe they were making the case that free Facebook is in any way healthy or good for you.
The Luddites (or at least their successors) won, and we are lucky that they did.
I recently published an article about the Luddites. If you look at their actual demands, they were not anti-tech. They were labor activists. Life got much, much worse for most people in the industrial revolution until the laws they advocated were finally implemented.
I think that is the core truth of the matter. Technology itself does not make life better.
I recently published an article about the Luddites. If you look at their actual demands, they were not anti-tech. They were labor activists. Life got much, much worse for most people in the industrial revolution until the laws they advocated were finally implemented.
The Luddites were against the systems that were shifting work away from skilled workers (them) to unskilled workers (commonly children). I have no doubt serious injury and death happened at those machines but find it hard to believe that was the cause of the Luddites. All signs point to them being more worried about themselves.
There’s no way they would have been pro-AI. It would take a very skilled VC to warp the world enough to make that sound true.
If you look at what their actual demands, the pattern is clear. They lobbied for support for unemployed, the right to vote, improved safely and labor conditions across all industries, and enforcing the labor laws that were already on the books. Banning machines was not part of their demands.
The Luddites were part of a larger labor movement that spanned multiple industries.
That is still a lot closer to collective bargaining than “save the children”.
What you’re saying is plausible enough to be easy to get an LLM to hallucinate, is the larger concern here. If this opinion does come from one, try asking it to verify using external sources. The Luddites would have been violently opposed to AI slop, if they had an opinion on it.
This will be just another minor cost of doing business unless they are treated like human drivers in at least two other ways.
1) If theses companies get enough points on their license, their license is revoked. Not just for that vehicle, but for all of their vehicles. (The number of points would need to be adjusted for number of miles driven.)
2) Senior executives could be held criminally liable for vehicular manslaughter the way a normal drivers are. A death doesn't mean someone is going to prison, but their would be a police investigation. If an exec decided to ship a product with a known bug that lead to someone's death it should be treated with the same seriousness as a drunk driver killing someone.
I used to be a professional musician, and I can't work if there is any music playing the the background. It drove my ex-wife nuts because she could not stand the silence. We ended up playing background sounds from coffee shops, which worked for both of us.
But recently there is one big exception!
I can listen to AI-generated instrumental jazz or blues in the background, and it does not distract me after the first few seconds. I think it's because the music doesn't go anywhere. It's just kind of noodling.
As a musician, I feel kind of bad listening to AI music, but it is amazing in this use case.
talk is cheap, so what is he doing today to make that happen? Is he supporting NGOs or politicians focused on making this happen, or is he just musing that it would be nice? (I honestly don't know, but I've only seen the non-committal musing.)
There is this ongoing flack in our "billionaire-said-a-thing" news where billionaires imply that their tech will result in huge benefits that will be delivered by someone else once they amass their fortunes.
Musk is the most obvious. He publicly proclaims his mission to create technology that ensures we all live better, healthier lives, while routinely violating labor, safety, and environmental laws and insisting his employees work 60-hour weeks with minimal vacation in order to give him a shot at becoming the world’s first trillionaire.
If you look at their actual demands its clear the the Luddites were not actually opposed to the new technology, but the new business practices.
It's an interesting parallel to AI today, where criticism of the business practices of AI firms tends to be written of as fear of new technology by people who will be "left behind".
> People are not willing to sacrifice their freedom to save 40,990 people from cars, why should our constant locations be monitored?
It's not binary.
People are absolutely willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms to save lives. That's why we have speed limits, seat-belt and helmet laws, automobile safety regulations, DWI laws, etc.
have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents?
i am somewhat convinced that Americans views on cars is like that of guns, a absolute right that can and will not be infringed no matter how many must die
cars are more of a necessary “evil” than guns so the comparison is a little extreme so i don’t think the infringement of movement to cars is entirely irrational or unmetered, esp when in 99% of this country a car is absolutely required to live
> have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents?
That didn't address what the poster wrote, it's just a cheap reddit style of internet arguing that doesn't add anything. OP is right, society in general tolerates a bunch of regulations as to what and where and how they can drive.
Deaths from road accidents are (somewhat) more tolerated than say murder because of the enormous utility of cars. This is not bewildering to anybody who is not being disingenuous.
i am plainly disagreeing with the assertion that people are unwilling to give up more freedoms of driving to save lives based off my anecdotal experiences online seeing how ppl seem to on avg react to such regulations being passed
The Palantiri consistently provided their users technically accurate intelligence that lead to disastrous strategic decisions.
Denethor committed suicide out of despair, after a palantir showed him the black fleet approaching, but he did not know that it was actually Aragorn who had captured the fleet and was coming with reinforcements.
We don't know specifically how the palantir deceived Saruman, but it's pretty clear it was one of the key factors in his corruption and downfall.
And even Sauron himself was misled in this way! The palantir showed him, correctly, that a hobbit and Aragorn were at Helm's Deep, and he concluded that Aragorn had the ring. So he prematurely moved his armies out of Mordor and left the plains and Mt Doom unguarded, which permitted the destruction of the ring.
I honestly can't think of a worse name for a company that provides intel for strategic decision making.
reply