Archiv des Autors: innovation

by Dhruv Mehrotra Dell Cameron

Nearly every weekday morning, a device leaves a two-story home near Wiesbaden, Germany, and makes a 15-minute commute along a major autobahn. By around 7 am, it arrives at Lucius D. Clay Kaserne—the US Army’s European headquarters and a key hub for US intelligence operations.

The device stops near a restaurant before heading to an office near the base that belongs to a major government contractor responsible for outfitting and securing some of the nation’s most sensitive facilities.

For roughly two months in 2023, this device followed a predictable routine: stops at the contractor’s office, visits to a discreet hangar on base, and lunchtime trips to the base’s dining facility. Twice in November of last year, it made a 30-minute drive to the Dagger Complex, a former intelligence and NSA signals processing facility. On weekends, the device could be traced to restaurants and shops in Wiesbaden.

The individual carrying this device likely isn’t a spy or high-ranking intelligence official. Instead, experts believe, they’re a contractor who works on critical systems—HVAC, computing infrastructure, or possibly securing the newly built Consolidated Intelligence Center, a state-of-the-art facility suspected to be used by the National Security Agency.

Whoever they are, the device they’re carrying with them everywhere is putting US national security at risk.

A joint investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), and Netzpolitik.org reveals that US companies legally collecting digital advertising data are also providing the world a cheap and reliable way to track the movements of American military and intelligence personnel overseas, from their homes and their children’s schools to hardened aircraft shelters within an airbase where US nuclear weapons are believed to be stored.

A collaborative analysis of billions of location coordinates obtained from a US-based data broker provides extraordinary insight into the daily routines of US service members. The findings also provide a vivid example of the significant risks the unregulated sale of mobile location data poses to the integrity of the US military and the safety of its service members and their families overseas.

We tracked hundreds of thousands of signals from devices inside sensitive US installations in Germany. That includes scores of devices within suspected NSA monitoring or signals-analysis facilities, more than a thousand devices at a sprawling US compound where Ukrainian troops were being being trained in 2023, and nearly 2,000 others at an air force base that has crucially supported American drone operations.

A device likely tied to an NSA or intelligence employee broadcast coordinates from inside a windowless building with a metal exterior known as the “Tin Can,” which is reportedly used for NSA surveillance, according to agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Another device transmitted signals from within a restricted weapons testing facility, revealing its zig-zagging movements across a high-security zone used for tank maneuvers and live munitions drills.

We traced these devices from barracks to work buildings, Italian restaurants, Aldi grocery stores, and bars. As many as four devices that regularly pinged from Ramstein Air Base were later tracked to nearby brothels off base, including a multistory facility called SexWorld.

Experts caution that foreign governments could use this data to identify individuals with access to sensitive areas; terrorists or criminals could decipher when US nuclear weapons are least guarded; or spies and other nefarious actors could leverage embarrassing information for blackmail.

“The unregulated data broker industry poses a clear threat to national security,” says Ron Wyden, a US senator from Oregon with more than 20 years overseeing intelligence work. “It is outrageous that American data brokers are selling location data collected from thousands of brave members of the armed forces who serve in harms’ way around the world.”

Wyden approached the US Defense Department in September after initial reporting by BR and netzpolitik.org raised concerns about the tracking of potential US service members. DoD failed to respond. Likewise, Wyden’s office has yet to hear back from members of US president Joe Biden’s National Security Council, despite repeated inquiries. The NSC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“There is ample blame to go around,” says Wyden, “but unless the incoming administration and Congress act, these kinds of abuses will keep happening, and they’ll cost service members‘ lives.”

The Oregon senator also raised the issue earlier this year with the Federal Trade Commission, following an FTC order that imposed unprecedented restrictions against a US company it accused of gathering data around “sensitive locations.” Douglas Farrar, the FTC’s director of public affairs, declined a request to comment.

WIRED can now exclusively report, however, that the FTC is on the verge of fulfilling Wyden’s request. An FTC source, granted anonymity to discuss internal matters, says the agency is planning to file multiple lawsuits soon that will formally recognize US military installations as protected sites. The source adds that the lawsuits are in keeping with years‘ worth of work by FTC Chair Lina Khan aimed at shielding US consumers—including service members—from harmful surveillance practices.

Before a targeted ad appears on an app or website, third-party software often embedded in apps called software development kits transmit information about their users to data brokers, real-time bidding platforms, and ad exchanges—often including location data. Data brokers often will collect that data, analyze it, repackage it, and sell it.

In February of 2024, reporters from BR and Netzpolitik.org obtained a free sample of this kind of data from Datastream Group, a Florida-based data broker. The dataset contains 3.6 billion coordinates—some recorded at millisecond intervals—from up to 11 million mobile advertising IDs in Germany over what the company says is a 59-day span from October through December 2023.

Mobile advertising IDs are unique identifiers used by the advertising industry to serve personalized ads to smartphones. These strings of letters and numbers allow companies to track user behavior and target ads effectively. However, mobile advertising IDs can also reveal much more sensitive information, particularly when combined with precise geolocation data.

In total, our analysis revealed granular location data from up to 12,313 devices that appeared to spend time at or near at least 11 military and intelligence sites, potentially exposing crucial details like entry points, security practices, and guard schedules—information that, in the hands of hostile foreign governments or terrorists, could be deadly.

Our investigation uncovered 38,474 location signals from up to 189 devices inside Büchel Air Base, a high-security German installation where as many as 15 US nuclear weapons are reportedly stored in underground bunkers. At Grafenwöhr Training Area, where thousands of US troops are stationed and have trained Ukrainian soldiers on Abrams tanks, we tracked 191,415 signals from up to 1,257 devices.

At Lucius D. Clay Kaserne, the US Army’s European headquarters, we identified 74,968 location signals from as many as 799 devices, including some at the European Technical Center, once the NSA’s communication hub in Europe.Courtesy of OpenMapTiles

In Wiesbaden, home to the US Army’s European headquarters at Lucius D. Clay Kaserne, 74,968 location signals from as many as 799 devices were detected—some originating from sensitive intelligence facilities like the European Technical Center, once the NSA’s communication hub in Europe, and newly built intelligence operations centers.

At Ramstein Air Base, which supports some US drone operations, 164,223 signals from nearly 2,000 devices were tracked. That included devices tracked to Ramstein Elementary and High School, base schools for the children of military personnel.

Of these devices, 1,326 appeared at more than one of these highly sensitive military sites, potentially mapping the movements of US service members across Europe’s most secure locations.

The data is not infallible. Mobile ad IDs can be reset, meaning multiple IDs can be assigned to the same device. Our analysis found that, in some instances, devices were assigned more than 10 mobile ad IDs.

The location data’s precision at the individual device level can also be inconsistent. By contacting several people whose movements were revealed in the dataset, the reporting collective confirmed that much of the data was highly accurate—identifying work commutes and dog walks of individuals contacted. However, this wasn’t always the case. One reporter whose ID appears in the dataset found that it often placed him a block away from his apartment and during times when he was out of town. A study from NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence found that “quantity overshadows quality” in the data broker industry and that, on average, only up to 60 percent of the data surveyed can be considered precise.

According to its website, Datastream Group appears to offer “internet advertising data coupled with hashed emails, cookies, and mobile location data.” Its listed datasets include niche categories like boat owners, mortgage seekers, and cigarette smokers. The company, one of many in a multibillion-dollar location-data industry, did not respond to our request for comment about the data it provided on US military and intelligence personnel in Germany, where the US maintains a force of at least 35,000 troops, according to the most recent estimates.

Defense Department officials have known about the threat that commercial data brokers pose to national security since at least 2016, when Mike Yeagley, a government contractor and technologist, delivered a briefing to senior military officials at the Joint Special Operations Command compound in Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg), North Carolina, about the issue. Yeagley’s presentation aimed to show how commercially available mobile data—already pervasive in conflict zones like Syria—could be weaponized for pattern of life analysis.

Midway through the presentation, Yeagley decided to raise the stakes. “Well, here’s the behavior of an ISIS operator,” he tells WIRED, recalling his presentation. “Let me turn the mirror around—let me show you how it works for your own personnel.” He then displayed data revealing phones as they moved from Fort Bragg in North Carolina and MacDill Air Force Base in Florida—critical hubs for elite US special operations units. The devices traveled through transit points like Turkey before clustering in northern Syria at a seemingly abandoned cement factory near Kobane, a known ISIS stronghold. The location he pinpointed was a covert forward operating base.

Yeagley says he was quickly escorted to a secured room to continue his presentation behind closed doors. There, officials questioned him on how he had obtained the data, concerned that his stunt had involved hacking personnel or unauthorized intercepts.

The data wasn’t sourced from espionage but from unregulated commercial brokers, he explained to the concerned DOD officials. “I didn’t hack, intercept, or engineer this data,” he told them. “I bought it.”

Now, years later, Yeagley remains deeply frustrated with the DODs inability to control the situation. What WIRED, BR, and Netzpolitik.org are now reporting is “very similar to the alarms we raised almost 10 years ago,” he says, shaking his head. “And it doesn’t seem like anything’s changed.”

US law requires the director of national intelligence to provide “protection support” for the personal devices of “at risk” intelligence personnel who are deemed susceptible to “hostile information collection activities.” But which personnel meet this criteria is unclear, as is the extent of the protections beyond periodic training and advice. The location data we acquired demonstrates, regardless, that commercial surveillance is far too pervasive and complex to be reduced to individual responsibility.

Biden’s outgoing director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, did not respond to a request for comment.

A report declassified by Haines last summeracknowledges that US intelligence agencies had purchased a “large amount” of “sensitive and intimate information” about US citizens from commercial data brokers, adding that “in the wrong hands,” the data could “facilitate blackmail, stalking, harassment, and public shaming.” The report, which contains numerous redactions, notes that, while the US government „would never have been permitted to compel billions of people to carry location tracking devices on their persons at all times,” smartphones, connected cars, and web tracking have all made this possible “without government participation.”

Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for Adam Smith, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said Smith was unavailable to discuss the matter, busy negotiating a must-pass bill to fund the Pentagon’s policy priorities next year.

Jack Reed and Roger Wicker, the leading Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Inquiries placed with House and Senate leaders and top lawmakers on both congressional intelligence committees have gone unanswered.

The DOD and the NSA declined to answer specific questions related to our investigation. However, DOD spokesperson Javan Rasnake says that the Pentagon is aware that geolocation services could put personnel at risk and urged service members to remember their training and adhere strictly to operational security protocols. “Within the USEUCOM region, members are reminded of the need to execute proper OPSEC when conducting mission activities inside operational areas,” Rasnake says, using the shorthand for operational security.

An internal Pentagon presentation obtained by the reporting collective, though, claims that not only is the domestic data collection likely capable of revealing military secrets, it is essentially unavoidable at the personal level, service members’ lives being simply too intertwined with the technology permitting it. This conclusion closely mirrors the observations of Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court, who in landmark privacy cases within the past decade described cell phones as being a “pervasive and insistent part of daily life” and that owning one was “indispensable to participation in modern society.”

The presentation, which a source says was delivered to high-ranking general officers, including the US Army’s chief information officer, warns that despite promises from major ad tech companies, “de-anonymization” is all but trivial given the widespread availability of commercial data collected on Pentagon employees. The document emphasizes that the caches of location data on US individuals is a “force protection issue,” likely capable of revealing troop movements and other highly guarded military secrets.

While instances of blackmail inside the Pentagon have seen a sharp decline since the Cold War, many of the structural barriers to persistently surveilling Americans have also vanished. In recent decades, US courts have repeatedly found that new technologies pose a threat to privacy by enabling surveillance that, “in earlier times, would have been prohibitively expensive,“ as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

In an August 2024 ruling, another US appeals court disregarded claims by tech companies that users who “opt in” to surveillance were actually “informed” and doing so “voluntarily,” declaring the opposite is clear to “anyone with a smartphone.” The internal presentation for military staff presses that adversarial nations can gain access to advertising data with ease, using it to exploit, manipulate, and coerce military personnel for purposes of espionage.

Patronizing sex workers, whether legal in a foreign country or not, is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The penalties can be severe, including forfeiture of pay, dishonorable discharge, and up to one year of imprisonment. But the ban on solicitation is not merely imposed on principle alone, says Michael Waddington, a criminal defense attorney who specializes in court-marial cases. “There’s a genuine danger of encountering foreign agents in these establishments, which can lead to blackmail or exploitation,” he says.

“This issue is particularly concerning given the current geopolitical climate. Many US servicemembers in Europe are involved in supporting Ukraine in its defense against the Russian invasion,” Waddington says. “Any compromise of their integrity could have serious implications for our operations and national security.”

When it comes to jeopardizing national security, even data on low-level personnel can pose a risk, says Vivek Chilukuri, senior fellow and program director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Before joining CNAS, Chilukuri served in part as legislative director and tech policy advisor to US senator Michael Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee and previously worked at the US State Department, specializing in countering violent extremism.

„Low-value targets can lead to high-value compromises,“ Chilukuri says. „Even if someone isn’t senior in an organization, they may have access to highly sensitive infrastructure. A system is only as secure as its weakest link.“ He points out that if adversaries can target someone with access to a crucial server or database, they could exploit that vulnerability to cause serious damage. “It just takes one USB stick plugged into the right device to compromise an organization.”

It’s not just individual service members who are at risk—entire security protocols and operational routines can be exposed through location data. At Büchel Air Base, where the US is believed to have stored an estimated 10 to 15 B61 nuclear weapons, the data reveals the daily activity patterns of devices on the base, including when personnel are most active and, more concerningly, potentially when the base is least populated.

Overview of the Air Mobility Command ramp at Ramstein Air Base, Germany.Photograph: Timm Ziegenthaler/Stocktrek Images; Getty Images

Büchel has 11 protective aircraft shelters equipped with hardened vaults for nuclear weapons storage. Each vault, which is located in a so-called WS3, or Weapons Storage and Security System, can hold up to four warheads. Our investigation traced precise location data for as many as 40 cellular devices that were present in or near these bunkers.

The patterns we could observe from devices at Büchel go far beyond just understanding the working hours of people on base. In aggregate, it’s possible to map key entry and exit points, pinpointing frequently visited areas, and even tracing personnel to their off-base routines. For a terrorist, this information could be a gold mine—an opportunity to identify weak points, plan an attack, or target individuals with access to sensitive areas.

This month, German authorities arrested a former civilian contractor employed by the US military on allegations of offering to pass sensitive information about American military operations in Germany to Chinese intelligence agencies.

In April, German authorities arrested two German-Russian nationals accused of scouting US military sites for potential sabotage, including allegedly arson. One of the targeted locations was the US Army’s Grafenwöhr Training Area in Bavaria, a critical hub for US military operations in Europe that spans 233 square kilometers.

At Grafenwöhr, WIRED, BR, and Netzpolitik.org could track the precise movements from up to 1,257 devices. Some devices could even be observed zigzagging through Range 301, an armored vehicle course, before returning to nearby barracks.

Our investigation found 38,474 location signals from up to 189 devices inside Büchel Air Base, around a dozen US nuclear weapons are reportedly stored.Courtesy of OpenMapTiles

A senior fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and head of its data brokerage research project, Justin Sherman also leads Global Cyber Strategies, a firm specializing in cybersecurity and tech policy. In 2023, he and his coauthors at Duke secured $250,000 in funding from the United States Military Academy to investigate how easy it is to purchase sensitive data about military personnel from data brokers. The results were alarming: They were able to buy highly sensitive, nonpublic, individually identifiable health and financial data on active-duty service members, without any vetting.

“It shows you how bad the situation is,” Sherman says, explaining how they geofenced requests to specific special operations bases. “We didn’t pretend to be a marketing firm in LA. We just wanted to see what the data brokers would ask.” Most brokers didn’t question their requests, and one even offered to bypass an ID verification check if they paid by wire.

During the study, Sherman helped draft an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that requires the Defense Department to ensure that highly identifiable individual data shared with contractors cannot be resold. He found the overall impact of the study underwhelming, however. “The scope of the industry is the problem,” he says. “It’s great to pass focused controls on parts of the ecosystem, but if you don’t address the rest of the industry, you leave the door wide open for anyone wanting location data on intelligence officers.”

Efforts by the US Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation have been stalled for the better part of a decade. The latest effort, known as the American Privacy Rights Act, failed to advance in June after GOP leaders threatened to scuttle the bill, which was significantly weakened before being shelved.

Another current privacy bill, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, seeks to ban the US government from purchasing data on Americans that it would normally need a warrant to obtain. While the bill would not prohibit the sale of commercial location data altogether, it would bar federal agencies from using those purchases to circumvent constitutional protections upheld by the Supreme Court. Its fate rests in the hands of House and Senate leaders, whose negotiations are private.

“The government needs to stop subsidizing what is now for good reason one of the world’s least popular industries,” says Sean Vitka, policy director at the nonprofit Demand Progress. “There are a lot of members of Congress who take seriously the severe threats to privacy and national security posed by data brokers, but we’ve seen many actions by congressional leaders that only furthers the problem. There shouldn’t need to be a body count for these people to take action.”

The Internet Archive’s Fight to Save Itself

Kommentar verfassen

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-memory-wayback-machine-lawsuits/

The web’s collective memory is stored in the servers of the Internet Archive. Legal battles threaten to wipe it all away.

Indoors People Person Prayer Architecture Building Chapel and Church

If you step into the headquarters of the Internet Archive on a Friday after lunch, when it offers public tours, chances are you’ll be greeted by its founder and merriest cheerleader, Brewster Kahle.

You cannot miss the building; it looks like it was designed for some sort of Grecian-themed Las Vegas attraction and plopped down at random in San Francisco’s foggy, mellow Richmond district. Once you pass the entrance’s white Corinthian columns, Kahle will show you the vintage Prince of Persia arcade game and a gramophone that can play century-old phonograph cylinders on display in the foyer. He’ll lead you into the great room, filled with rows of wooden pews sloping toward a pulpit. Baroque ceiling moldings frame a grand stained glass dome. Before it was the Archive’s headquarters, the building housed a Christian Science church.

I made this pilgrimage on a breezy afternoon last May. Along with around a dozen other visitors, I followed Kahle, 63, clad in a rumpled orange button-down and round wire-rimmed glasses, as he showed us his life’s work. When the afternoon light hits the great hall’s dome, it gives everyone a halo. Especially Kahle, whose silver curls catch the sun and who preaches his gospel with an amiable evangelism, speaking with his hands and laughing easily. “I think people are feeling run over by technology these days,” Kahle says. “We need to rehumanize it.”

In the great room, where the tour ends, hundreds of colorful, handmade clay statues line the walls. They represent the Internet Archive’s employees, Kahle’s quirky way of immortalizing his circle. They are beautiful and weird, but they’re not the grand finale. Against the back wall, where one might find confessionals in a different kind of church, there’s a tower of humming black servers. These servers hold around 10 percent of the Internet Archive’s vast digital holdings, which includes 835 billion web pages, 44 million books and texts, and 15 million audio recordings, among other artifacts. Tiny lights on each server blink on and off each time someone opens an old webpage or checks out a book or otherwise uses the Archive’s services. The constant, arrhythmic flickers make for a hypnotic light show. Nobody looks more delighted about this display than Kahle.

Brewster Kahle Blazer Clothing Coat Jacket Adult Person Standing Accessories and Glasses

It is no exaggeration to say that digital archiving as we know it would not exist without the Internet Archive—and that, as the world’s knowledge repositories increasingly go online, archiving as we know it would not be as functional. Its most famous project, the Wayback Machine, is a repository of web pages that functions as an unparalleled record of the internet. Zoomed out, the Internet Archive is one of the most important historical-preservation organizations in the world. The Wayback Machine has assumed a default position as a safety valve against digital oblivion. The rhapsodic regard the Internet Archive inspires is earned—without it, the world would lose its best public resource on internet history.

Its employees are some of its most devoted congregants. “It is the best of the old internet, and it’s the best of old San Francisco, and neither one of those things really exist in large measures anymore,” says the Internet Archive’s director of library services, Chris Freeland, another longtime staffer, who loves cycling and favors black nail polish. “It’s a window into the late-’90s web ethos and late-’90s San Francisco culture—the crunchy side, before it got all tech bro. It’s utopian, it’s idealistic.”

Nuala Creed People Person Clothing Hat Adult Accessories Glasses and Blouse statues

But the Internet Archive also has its foes. Since 2020, it’s been mired in legal battles. In Hachette v. Internet Archive, book publishers complained that the nonprofit infringed on copyright by loaning out digitized versions of physical books. In UMG Recordings v. Internet Archive, music labels have alleged that the Internet Archive infringed on copyright by digitizing recordings.

In both cases, the Internet Archive has mounted “fair use” defenses, arguing that it is permitted to use copyrighted materials as a noncommercial entity creating archival materials. In both cases, the plaintiffs characterized it as a hub for piracy. In 2023, it lost Hachette. This month, it lost an appeal in the case. The Archive could appeal once more, to the Supreme Court of the United States, but has no immediate plans to do so. (“We have not decided,” Kahle told me the day after the decision.)

A judge rebuffed an attempt to dismiss the music labels’ case earlier this year. Kahle says he’s thinking about settling, if that’s even an option.

The combined weight of these legal cases threatens to crush the Internet Archive. The UMG case could prove existential, with potential fines running into the hundreds of millions. The internet has entrusted its collective memory to this one idiosyncratic institution. It now faces the prospect of losing it all.

Kahle has been obsessed with creating a digital library since he was young, a calling that spurred him to study artificial intelligence at MIT. “I wanted to build the library of everything, and we needed computers that were big enough to be able to deal with it,” he says.

After graduating in 1982, he worked at the supercomputing startup Thinking Machines Corporation. While there, he developed a program called Wide Area Information Server (WAIS), a way to search for data on remote computers. He left to cocreate a startup of the same name, which he sold to AOL in 1995. The next year, he launched a two-headed project from his attic: “AI and IA.”That “AI” was a for-profit company called Alexa Internet—“Alexa” a nod to the Library of Alexandria—alongside the nonprofit Internet Archive. The two projects were interlinked; Alexa Internet crawled the web, then donated what it collected to the Internet Archive. Kahle couldn’t quite make the business model work. When Amazon made an offer in 1999, it seemed prudent to accept. The Everything Store paid a reported $250 million in stock for Alexa, severing the AI from IA and leaving Kahle a wealthy man.

Kahle stayed on with Alexa for a few years but left in 2002 to focus on the Internet Archive. It has been his vocation ever since. “His entire being is committed to the Archive,” says copyright scholar Pam Samuelson, who has known Kahle since the ’90s. “He lives and breathes it.”

If Silicon Valley has a Mr. Fezziwig, it’s Kahle. He’s not an ascetic; he owns a handsome black sailboat anchored in a slip at a tony yacht club. But his day-to-day life is modest. He ebikes to work and dresses like a guy who doesn’t care about clothes, and while he used to love Burning Man—he and his wife, Mary Austin, got married there in 1992—now he thinks it’s gotten too big. (Their current bougie-hippie pastime is the seasteading gathering Ephemerisle, where boaters hitch themselves together and create temporary islands in the Sacramento River Delta every July.)

What he really loves, above all, is his job.

“The story of Brewster Kahle is that of a guy who wins the lottery,” says longtime archivist Jason Scott. “And he and his wife, Mary, turned around and said, awesome, we get to be librarians now.”

Person Car Transportation Vehicle Plant and Tree Graffiti van Internet Archive building

Kahle is now the merry custodian to a uniquely comprehensive catalog, spanning all manner of digital and physical media, from classic video games to live recordings of concerts to magazines and newspapers to books from around the world. It recently backed up the island of Aruba’s cultural institutions. It’s an essential tool for everything from legal research—particularly around patent law—to accountability journalism. “There are other online archiving tools,” says ProPublica reporter Craig Silverman, “but none of them touch the Internet Archive.” It is, in short, a proof machine.What makes the Internet Archive unique is its willingness to push boundaries in ways that traditional libraries do not. The Library of Congress also archives the web—but only after it has notified, and often asked permission from, the websites it scrapes.

“The Internet Archive has always been a little risky,” says University of Waterloo historian Ian Milligan, who has a forthcoming book on web archiving. Its distinctive utility is entwined with its long-standing outré approach to copyright. In fact, Kahle and the Internet Archive sued the government more than two decades ago, challenging the way the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 had expanded copyright law. He lost that case—but, certainly, not his desire to keep pushing.

One of those pushes came in 2005. At the time, beloved hacker Aaron Swartz was often working on Internet Archive projects, and he cocreated and led the development of a new initiative called the Open Library program along with Kahle. The goal was to create one webpage for every book in the world. Kahle saw it as an alternative to Google Books, one that wasn’t driven by commercial interests but loftier and decidedly kumbaya information-wants-to-be-free ambitions.

In addition to its attempt to catalog every book ever, the project sought to make copies available to readers. To that end, it scans physical books, then allows people to check out the digitized versions. For over a decade, it has operated using a framework called controlled digital lending (CDL), where digitized books are treated as old-fashioned physical books rather than ebooks. The books it lends out were either purchased by the Internet Archive or donated by other libraries, organizations, or individuals; according to CDL principles, libraries that own a physical copy of a book should be able to lend it digitally.

Furniture Table Desk Person Teen Computer Computer Hardware Computer Keyboard and Electronics

The project primarily appeals to researchers for whom specific books are hard to attain elsewhere, rather than casual readers. “Try checking out one of our books and then reading it—it’s tough going,” Kahle says. He’s not lying. A blurry scan of a physical book on a desktop screen compared to a regular ebook on a Kindle is like music from a tinny iPhone speaker versus a Bose surround sound system. Most borrowers read what they check out for less than five minutes.

Like other digital media, ebooks are typically licensed rather than sold outright, at a much higher rate than the cover price. Libraries who license ebooks get a limited number of loans; if they stop paying, the book vanishes. CDL is an attempt to give libraries more control over their inventory, and to expand access to books in a library’s collection that exist only as physical copies.

For years, publishers ignored the Internet Archive’s book-scanning spree. Finally, during the pandemic, after the Internet Archive took one liberty too many with its approach to CDL, they snapped.

In March 2020, as schools and libraries abruptly shut down, they faced a dilemma. Demand for ebooks far outstripped their ability to loan them out under restrictive licensing deals, and they had no way of lending out books that existed only in physical form. In response, the Internet Archive made a bold decision: It allowed multiple people to check out digital versions of the same book simultaneously. It called this program the National Emergency Library. “We acted at the request of librarians and educators and writers,” says Chris Freeland.

Kahle remembers feeling a vocational tug in that moment for the Internet Archive to do whatever it could to expand access. He thought they had broad support, too. “We got over 100 libraries to sign on and say ‘help us,’” Kahle says. “They stood behind the National Emergency Library and said ‘do this under our names.’”

Dave Hansen, now executive director of the nonprofit Authors Alliance, was a librarian at Duke University at the time. “We had tremendous challenges getting books for our students,” he says. “What they did was a good-faith effort.”

Text Book Publication Person Accessories Bracelet Jewelry Newspaper Chair and Furniture archives

Not everyone agreed. Prominent writers vehemently criticized the project, as did the Authors Guild and the National Writers Union. “They are not a library. Libraries buy books and respect copyright. They are fraudsters posing as saints,” author James Gleick wrote on Twitter. (Today, Gleick maintains that the Internet Archive is not a library, though he says “fraudsters was a little harsh.”)

“They seem to work by fiat,” says Bhamati Viswanathan, a copyright lawyer who signed an amicus brief on behalf of the publishers in the Hachette case. Viswanathan thinks it was arrogant to circumvent the licensing system. “Very much like what the tech companies seem to be doing, which is, ‘we’re going to ask forgiveness, not permission.’”

The Internet Archive was in its first full-blown PR crisis. The coalition of publishing houses filed its lawsuit in June 2020, alleging that both the National Emergency Library and the Internet Archive’s broader Open Library program violated copyright. A few weeks later, the Internet Archive scuttled the National Emergency Library and reverted to its traditional, capped loan system, but it made no difference to the publishers.

The publishing houses and their supporters maintain that the Archive’s behavior harmed authors. “Internet Archive is arguing that it is OK to make and publicly distribute unauthorized copies of an author’s work to the global public,” Terrance Hart, the general counsel for the Association of American Publishers, tells WIRED. “Imagine if everyone started doing the same. The only existential threat here is the one posed by Internet Archive to the livelihoods of authors and to the copyright system itself in the digital age.”

AI Lab

WIRED’s resident AI expert Will Knight takes you to the cutting edge of this fast-changing field and beyond—keeping you informed about where AI and technology are headed. Delivered on Wednesdays.

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from WIRED. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

After the lawsuit was filed, over a thousand writers signed a letter in support of libraries and the Internet Archive to be able to loan digital books, including Naomi Klein and Daniel Ellsberg. One supportive author, Chuck Wendig, had very publicly changed his mind after initially tweeting criticism. Even some writers who currently belong to and support the Authors Guild, like Joanne McNeil, were staunch supporters of the Archive. She sometimes reads out-of-print books using the lending service and still sees it as a vital tool. “I hope my books are in the Open Library project,” she says, telling me that she’s already aware that her critically acclaimed but modestly popular books aren’t widely available. “At least I’ll know that way there’s someplace someone can find them.”

The shows of support didn’t matter. The publishers didn’t back down. In March 2023, the Internet Archive lost the case. This September, it lost its appeal. The court refuted the fair use arguments, insisting that the organization had not proved that it wasn’t financially harming publishers. In the meantime, legal bills continue to pile up for the Internet Archive’s next challenge.

After the initial ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the parties agreed upon settlement terms; although those terms are confidential, Kahle has confirmed that the Internet Archive can financially survive it thanks to the help of donors. If the Internet Archive decides not to file a second appeal, it will have to fulfill those settlement terms. A blow, but not a death knell.The other lawsuit may be far harder to survive. In 2023, several major record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony, and Capitol, sued the Internet Archive over its Great 78 Project, a digital archive of a niche collection of recordings of albums in the obsolete record format known as 78s, which was used from the 1890s to the late 1950s. The complaint alleges that the project “undermines the value of music.” It lists 2,749 recordings as infringed, which means damages could potentially be over $400 million.

“One thing that you can say about the recording industry,” Pam Samuelson says, “is that there are no statutory damages that are too large for them to claim.”

Internet Archive Lamp Chair Furniture Home Decor Couch Indoors Architecture Building Living Room Room and Desk

As with the book publishing case, the Internet Archive’s defense hinges on fair use. It argues that preserving obsolete versions of these records, complete with the crackles and pops from the old shellac resin, makes history accessible. Copyright law is notoriously unpredictable, and some find the Internet Archive’s case shaky. “It doesn’t strike me, necessarily, as a winning fair use argument,” says Zvi Rosen, a law professor at Southern Illinois University who focuses on copyright.

James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell University, thinks the labels are “vastly exaggerating the commercial harm” from the project. (If there was a sizable audience for extremely low-quality versions of songs, he reasons, why wouldn’t the labels be putting out 78-style releases?) On average, each recording is accessed only once a month. Still, Grimmelmann isn’t convinced that will matter. “They are directly reproducing these works,” he says. “That’s a very hard lift for a judge.”

It may be years before the case is resolved, which means the uncertainty about the Internet Archive’s future is likely to linger, and potentially spread. And if it is resolved through either a settlement or a win for the recording industry, other copyright holders could be inspired to sue. “I’m worried about the blast radius from the music lawsuit,” Grimmelmann says.In Kahle’s view, the Internet Archive’s legal challenges are part of a larger story about beleaguered libraries in the United States. He likes to frame his plight as a battle against a cadre of nefarious publishers, one piece of a larger struggle to wrest back the right to own books in the digital age. (Get him started on the topic, and he’ll likely point out that both ebook distributor OverDrive and publishing company Simon & Schuster are owned by the global investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.) He’s keenly aware that everything he has built is in danger. “It’s the time of Orwell but with corporations,” Kahle says. “It’s scary.”

Losing the Archive is, indeed, a frightening prospect. “There is a misperception that things on the web are forever—but they really, really aren’t,” says Craig Silverman, who thinks the nonprofit’s demise would make certain types of scholarship and reporting “way more difficult, if not impossible,” in addition to representing a disappearance of a bastion of collective memory.

Just this September, Google and the Internet Archive announced a partnership to allow people to see previous versions of websites surfaced through Google Search by linking to the Wayback Machine. Google previously offered its own cached historical websites; now it leans on a small nonprofit.

The Internet Archive also has challenges beyond its legal woes. For starters, it’s getting harder to archive things. As Mark Graham, director of the Wayback Machine, told me, the rise of apps with functions like livestreaming, especially when they’re limited to certain operating systems, presents a technical challenge. On top of that, paywalls are an obstacle, as is the sheer and ever-increasing amount of content. “There’s just so much material,” he says. “How does one know what to prioritize?”

Then there’s AI, once again. Thus far, the Internet Archive has sidestepped or been exempt from the new scrutiny on web crawling as it relates to AI training data. This June, for example, when Reddit announced that it was updating its scraping policy, it specifically noted that it was still allowing “good faith actors” like the Internet Archive to crawl it. But as opposition to rampant AI data scraping grows, the Internet Archive may yet face a new obstacle: If regulators and lawmakers are clumsy in attempts to curb permissionless AI web scraping, it could kneecap services like the Wayback Machine, which functions precisely because it can trawl and reproduce vast amounts of data.

The rise of AI has already soured some creative types on the Internet Archive’s approach to copyright. While Kahle views his creation as a library on the side of the little guy, opponents strenuously dispute this view. They paint Kahle as a tech-wolf disguised in librarian-sheep clothing, stuck in a mentality better suited for the Napster era. “The Internet Archive is really fighting the battles of 20 years ago, when it was as simple as ‘publishers bad, anything that hurts publishers good,’” says Neil Turkewitz, a former Recording Industry Association of America executive who has criticized the Archive’s copyright stances. “But that’s not the world we live in.”

Arch and Architecture server church rope

When I talk to Kahle over Zoom this September, shortly after he’d learned that the Internet Archive had lost the appeal, he’s agitated—an internet prophet literally wandering around in the wilderness. He’s perched in front of jagged cliffs while hiking outside of Arles, France, a blue baseball cap pulled over his hair, cheeks extra-ruddy in the sun, his default affability tempered by a sense of despondency. He hadn’t known about the timing of the ruling in advance, so he interrupted a weeklong vacation with Mary to jump back into work crisis mode. “It’s just so depressing,” he says.

As he sits on a rock with his phone in his hand, Kahle says the US legal system is broken. He says he doesn’t think this is the end of the lawsuits. “I think the copyright cartel is on a roll,” he says. He frets that copycat cases could be on the way. He’s the most bummed-out guy I’ve ever seen on vacation in the south of France. But he’s also defiant. There’s no inkling of regret, only a renewed sense that what he’s doing is righteous. “We have such an opportunity here. It’s the dream of the internet,” he says. “It’s ours to lose.” It sounds less like a statement and more like a prayer.

Alex Karp – Palantir

Kommentar verfassen

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/style/alex-karp-palantir.html

Alex Karp never learned to drive.

“I was too poor,” he said. “And then I was too rich.”

In fact, Mr. Karp, a co-founder and the C.E.O. of Palantir Technologies, the mysterious and powerful data analytics firm, doesn’t trust himself to drive. Or ride a bike. Or ski downhill.

“I’m a dreamer,” he said. “I’ll start dreaming and then I fall over. I started doing tai chi to prevent that. It’s really, really helped with focusing on one thing at a time. If you had met me 15 years ago, two-thirds of the conversation, I’d just be dreaming.”

What would he dream about?

“Literally, it could be a walk I did five years ago,” he said. “It could be some conversation I had in grad school. Could be my family member annoyed me. Something a colleague said, like: ‘Why did they say this? What does it actually mean?’”

Mr. Karp is a lean, extremely fit billionaire with unruly salt-and-pepper curls. He is introvert-charming (something I aspire to myself). He has A.D.H.D. and can’t hide it if he is not interested in what someone is saying. After a hyper spurt of talking, he loses energy and has to recharge on the stationary bike or by reading. Even though he thinks of himself as different, he seems to like being different. He enjoys being a provocateur onstage and in interviews.

“I’m a Jewish, racially ambiguous dyslexic, so I can say anything,” he said, smiling.

Unlike many executives in Silicon Valley, Mr. Karp backed President Biden, cutting him a big check, despite skepticism about his handling of the border and his overreliance on Hollywood elites like Jeffrey Katzenberg. Now he is supporting Vice President Kamala Harris, but he still has vociferous complaints about his party.

When he donates, he said, he does it in multiples of 18 because “it’s mystical — 18 brings good luck in the tradition of kabbalah. I gave Biden $360,000.”

The 56-year-old is perfectly happy hanging out in a remote woodsy meadow alone — except for his Norwegian ski instructor, his Swiss-Portuguese chef, his Austrian assistant, his American shooting instructor and his bodyguards. (Mr. Karp, who has never married, once complained that bodyguards crimp your ability to flirt.)

“This is like introverts’ heaven,” he said, looking at his red barn from the porch of his Austrian-style house with a mezuza on the door. “You can invite people graciously. No one comes.”

Editors’ Picks

Holy Hollywood! Batman Is the First Superhero With a Walk of Fame Star.Making Tender Scones at Home Is Easier Than You Think I Decentered Men. Decentering Desire for Men Is Harder.

The house is sparse on furniture, but Mr. Karp still worries that it is too cluttered. “I do have a Spartan thing,” he said. “I definitely feel constrained and slightly imprisoned when I have too much stuff around me.”

Wearing a white T-shirt and faded bluejeans, and with his hands in his pockets, Mr. Karp stands beside a wood-burning stove. — Asked about the dangers of artificial intelligence, Mr. Karp said, “The only solution to stop A.I. abuse is to use A.I.”Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

So how did a daydreaming doctoral student in German philosophy wind up leading a shadowy data analytics firm that has become a major American defense contractor, one that works with spy services as it charts the future of autonomous warfare?

He’s not a household name, and yet Mr. Karp is at the vanguard of what Mark Milley, the retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called “the most significant fundamental change in the character of war ever recorded in history.” In this new world, unorthodox Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Mr. Karp and Elon Musk are woven into the fabric of America’s national security.

Mr. Karp is also at the white-hot center of ethical issues about whether firms like Palantir are too Big Brother, with access to so much of our personal data as we sign away our privacy. And he is in the middle of the debate about whether artificial intelligence is friend or foe, whether killer robots and disembodied A.I. will one day turn on us.

Mr. Karp’s position is that we’re hurtling toward this new world whether we like it or not. Do we want to dominate it, or do we want to be dominated by China?

Critics worry about what happens when weapons are autonomous and humans become superfluous to the killing process. Tech reflects the values of its operators, so what if it falls into the hands of a modern Caligula?

“I think a lot of the issues come back to ‘Are we in a dangerous world where you have to invest in these things?’” Mr. Karp told me, as he moved around his living room in a tai chi rhythm, wearing his house shoes, jeans and a tight white T-shirt. “And I come down to yes. All these technologies are dangerous.” He adds: “The only solution to stop A.I. abuse is to use A.I.”

Inspired by Tolkien

Palantir’s name is derived from palantíri, the seeing stones in the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasies. The company’s office in Palo Alto, Calif., features “Lord of the Rings” décor and is nicknamed the Shire.

After years under the radar, Mr. Karp is now in the public eye. He has joked that he needs a coach to teach him how to be more normal.

Born in New York and raised outside Philadelphia in a leftist family, Mr. Karp has a Jewish father who was a pediatrician and a Black mother who is an artist. They were social activists who took young Alex to civil rights marches and other protests. His uncle, Gerald D. Jaynes, is an economics and African American studies professor at Yale; his brother, Ben, is an academic who lives in Japan.

“I just think I’ve always viewed myself as I don’t fit in, and I can’t really try to,” Mr. Karp said. “My parents’ background just gave me a primordial subconscious bias that anything that involves ‘We fit in together’ does not include me.

“Yes, I think the way I explain it politically is like, if fascism comes, I will be the first or second person on the wall.”

Mr. Karp has his own unique charisma. “He’s one of a kind, to say the least,” said the Democratic strategist James Carville, who is an informal adviser to Palantir.

When I visited the Palo Alto office, Mr. Karp accidentally knocked down a visitor while demonstrating a tai chi move. He apologized, then ran off to get a printout of Goethe’s “Faust” in German, which he read aloud in an effort to show that it was better than the English translation.

“If you were to do a sitcom on Palantir, it’s equal parts Larry David, a philosophy class, tech and James Bond,” he said.

Mr. Karp, just left of center, wearing a dark suit, a light-colored shirt and a dark tie, walks on a marble floor while holding a folder under his right arm. — Mr. Karp at the Senate building in Washington last year. He was among the tech industry titans, including Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who took part in a discussion of A.I. with lawmakers.Credit…Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Palantir was founded in 2003 by a gang of five, including Karp and his old Stanford Law School classmate Peter Thiel (now the company’s chairman). It was backed, in part, by nearly $2 million from In-Q-Tel, the C.I.A.’s venture capital arm.

“Saving lives and on occasion taking lives is super interesting,” Mr. Karp told me.

He described what his company does as “the finding of hidden things” — sifting through mountains of data to perceive patterns, including patterns of suspicious or aberrant behavior.

Mr. Karp does not believe in appeasement. “You scare the crap out of your adversaries,” he said. He brims with American chauvinism, boasting that we are leagues ahead of China and Russia on software.

“The tech scene in America is like the jazz scene in the 1950s,” he said in one forum. He told me: “I’m constantly telling people 86 percent of the top 50 tech companies in the world just by market cap are American — and people fall out of their chair. It’s hard for us to understand how dominant we are in certain industries.”

In the wake of 9/11, the C.I.A. bet on Palantir’s maw gobbling up data and auguring where the next terrorist attacks would come from. Palantir uses multiple databases to find the bad guy, even, as Mr. Karp put it, “if the bad guy actually works for you.”

The company is often credited with helping locate Osama bin Laden so Navy SEALs could kill him, but it’s unclear if that is true. As with many topics that came up in the course of our interviews in Washington, Palo Alto and New Hampshire, Mr. Karp zips his lips about whether his company was involved in dispatching the fiend of 9/11.

“If you have a reputation for talking about what the pope says when you meet him,” Mr. Karp explained, “you’ll never meet the pope again.”

He does crow a little about Western civilization’s resting on Palantir’s slender shoulders, noting that without its software, “you would’ve had massive terror attacks in Europe already, like Oct. 7 style.” And those attacks, he believes, would have propelled the far right to power.

Palantir does not do business with China, Russia or other countries that are opposed to the West. Mr. Thiel said the company tries to work with “more allied” and “less corrupt” governments, noting dryly that aside from their ideological stances, “with corrupt countries, you never get paid.”

“We have a consistently pro-Western view that the West has a superior way of living and organizing itself, especially if we live up to our aspirations,” Mr. Karp said. “It’s interesting how radical that is, considering it’s not, in my view, that radical.”

He added: “If you believe we should appease Iran, Russia and China by saying we’re going to be nicer and nicer and nicer, of course you’ll look at Palantir negatively. Some of these places want you to do the apology show for what you believe in, and we don’t apologize for what we believe in. I’m not going to apologize for defending the U.S. government on the border, defending the Special Ops, bringing the people home. I’m not apologizing for giving our product to Ukraine or Israel or lots of other places.”

As one Karp acquaintance put it: “Alex is principled. You just may not like his principles.”

Kara Swisher, the author of “Burn Book: A Tech Love Story,” told me: “While Palantir promises a more efficient and cost-effective way to conduct war, should our goal be to make it less expensive, onerous and painful? After all, war is not a video game, nor should it be.”

Mr. Karp’s friend Diane von Furstenberg told me that he sees himself as Batman, believing in the importance of choosing sides in a parlous world. (The New York office is called Gotham and features a statue and prints of Batman.) But some critics have a darker view, worrying about Palantir creating a “digital kill chain” and seeing Mr. Karp less as a hero than as a villain.

Back in 2016, some Democrats regarded Palantir as ominous because of Mr. Thiel’s support for former President Donald J. Trump. Later, conspiracy theories sprang up around the company’s role in Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort pushing the Covid-19 vaccine program from clinical trials to jabs in arms.

Seated next to each other at a conference table, Donald J. Trump uses both hands to hold the right hand of Peter Thiel, who is smiling. Mike Pence sits on the other side of Mr. Trump, looking on and smiling. — In December 2016, Donald J. Trump, then the president-elect, met with tech executives including the Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Some critics focused on Palantir’s work at the border, which helped U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement track down undocumented migrants for deportation. In 2019, about 70 demonstrators blocked access to the cafeteria outside the Palo Alto office. “Immigrants are welcome here, time to cancel Palantir,” they shouted.

The same year, over 200 Palantir employees, in a letter to Mr. Karp, outlined their concerns about the software that had helped ICE. And there was a campaign inside Palantir — in vain — to get him to donate the proceeds of a $49 million ICE contract to charity.

I asked Mr. Karp if Mr. Thiel’s public embrace of Mr. Trump the first time around had made life easier — in terms of getting government contracts — or harder.

“I didn’t enjoy it,” he said. “There’s a lot of reasons I cut Biden a check. I do not enjoy being protested every day. It was completely ludicrous and ridiculous. It was actually the opposite. Because Peter had supported Mr. Trump, it was actually harder to get things done.”

Did they talk about it?

“Peter and I talk about everything,” Mr. Karp said. “It’s like, yes, I definitely informed Peter, ‘This is not making our life easier.’”

Mr. Thiel did not give money to Mr. Trump or speak at his convention this time around, although he supports JD Vance, his former protégé at his venture capital firm. He said he might get more involved now because of Mr. Vance.

Palantir got its start in intelligence and defense — it now works with the Space Force — and has since sprouted across the government through an array of contracts. It helps the I.R.S. to identify tax fraud and the Food and Drug Administration to prevent supply chain disruptions and to get drugs to market quicker.

It has assisted Ukraine and Israel in sifting through seas of data to gather relevant intelligence in their wars — on how to protect special forces by mapping capabilities, how to safely transport troops and how to target drones and missiles more accurately.

In 2022, Mr. Karp took a secret trip to war-ravaged Kyiv, becoming the first major Western C.E.O. to meet with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and offering to supply his country with the technology that would allow it to be David to Russia’s Goliath. Time magazine ran a cover on Ukraine as a lab for A.I. warfare, and Palantir operatives embedded with the troops.

Mr. Karp is seated at a table with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. — A Ukrainian government handout image of Mr. Karp meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov in 2022.Credit…Office of the President of Ukraine

While Palantir’s role in helping Ukraine was heralded, its work with Israel, where targeting is more treacherous, because the enemy is parasitically entangled with civilians, is far more controversial.

“I think there’s a huge dichotomy between how the elite sees Ukraine and Israel,” Mr. Karp said. “If you go into any elite circle, pushing back against Russia is obvious, and Israel is complicated. If you go outside elite circles, it’s exactly the opposite.”

Independent analysts have said that Israel, during an April operation, could not have shot down scores of Iranian missiles and drones in mere minutes without Palantir’s tech. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scorched-earth campaign in Gaza, the starving and orphaned children and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians have drawn outrage, including some aimed at Mr. Karp and Mr. Thiel.

In May, protesters trapped Mr. Thiel inside a student building at the University of Cambridge. In recent days, senior U.S. officials have expressed doubts about Israel’s conduct of the war.

Mr. Karp’s position on backing Israel is adamantine. The company took out a full-page ad in The New York Times last year stating that “Palantir stands with Israel.”

“It’s like we have a double standard on Israel,” he told me. If the Oct. 7 attack had happened in America, he said, we would turn the hiding place of our enemies “into a parking lot. There would be no more tunnels.”

As Mr. Karp told CNBC in March: “We’ve lost employees. I’m sure we’ll lose more employees. If you have a position that does not cost you ever to lose an employee, it’s not a position.”

He told me, “If you believe that the West should lose and you believe that the only way to defend yourself is always with words and not with actions, you should be skeptical of us.”

He added: “I always think it’s hard because where the critics are right is what we do is morally complex. If you’re supporting the West with products that are used at war, you can’t pretend that there’s a simple answer.”

Does he have any qualms about what his company does?

“I’d have many more qualms if I thought our adversaries were committed to anything like the rule of law,” he said, adding: “A lot of this does come down to, do you think America is a beacon of good or not? I think a lot of the critics, what they actually believe is America is not a force for good.” His feeling is this: “Without being Pollyannaish, idiotic or pretending like any country’s been perfect or there’s not injustice, at the margin, would you want a world where America is stronger, healthy and more powerful, or not?”

In a crowd of demonstrators, one holds up a hand-drawn sign that shows an arm labeled ICE shaking hands with an arm labeled Palantir, with a no symbol over it. — In 2019, demonstrators protested the role of Palantir Technologies in aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Credit…Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

Asked about the impending TikTok ban, he said he’s “very in favor.”

“I do not think you should allow an adversary to control an algorithm that is specifically designed to make us slower, more divided and arguably less cognitively fit,” he said.

He considered the anti-Israel demonstrations such “an infection inside society,” reflecting “a pagan religion of mediocrity and discrimination and intolerance, and violence,” that he offered 180 jobs to students who were fearful of staying in college because of a spike in antisemitism on campuses.

“Palantir is a much better diploma,” he told me. “Honestly, it’s helping us, because there are very talented people at the Ivy League, and they’re like, ‘Get me out of here!’”

Mr. Karp sometimes gets emotional in his defense of Palantir. In June, when he received an award named in honor of Dwight Eisenhower at a D.C. gala for national security executives, he teared up. He said that when he lived in Germany, he often thought about the young men from Iowa and Kansas who risked their lives “to free people like me” during World War II. He said he was honored to receive an award named after the president who had integrated schools by force.

Claiming that his products “changed the course of history by stopping terror attacks,” Mr. Karp said that Palantir had also “protected our men and women on the battlefield” and “taken the lives of our enemies, and I don’t think that’s something to be ashamed of.”

He told the gala audience about being “yelled at” by people who “call themselves progressives.”

“I actually am a progressive,” he said. “I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries. If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.”

He added that “we in the corporate world” have “to grow a spine” on issues like the Ivy League protesters: “If we do not win the battle of ideas and reassert basic norms and the basic, obvious idea that America is a noble, great, wonderful aspiration of a dream that we are blessed to be part of, we will have a much, much worse world for all of us.”

How It Started

Mr. Karp practicing tai chi at his home in New Hampshire.Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

The wild origin story of Palantir plays like a spy satire.

After graduating from Haverford College, Mr. Karp went to Stanford Law School, which he called “the worst three years of my adult life.”

He wasn’t interested in his classmates’ obsession with landing prestigious jobs at top law firms. “I learned at law school that I cannot do something I do not believe in,” he said, “even if it’s just turning a wrench.”

He met Mr. Thiel, a fellow student, and they immediately hit it off, trash-talking law school and, over beers, debating socialism vs. capitalism. “We argued like feral animals,” Mr. Karp told Michael Steinberger in a New York Times Magazine piece.

The liberal Heidegger fan and the conservative René Girard fan made strange bedfellows, but that’s probably what drew them together.

“I think we bonded on this intellectual level where he was this crazy leftist and I was this crazy right-wing person,” Mr. Thiel told me, “but we somehow talked to each other.”

“Alex did the Ph.D. thing,“ he continued, “which was, in some ways, a very, very insane thing to do after law school, but I was positive on it, because it sounded more interesting than working at a law firm.”

Mr. Karp received his doctorate in neoclassical social theory from Goethe University Frankfurt. He reconnected with Mr. Thiel in 2002, while working at the Jewish Philanthropy Partnership in San Francisco. The two began doing “vague brainstorming,” as Mr. Thiel put it, about a business they could start.

Mr. Thiel thought he could figure out how to find terrorists by using some of the paradigms developed at PayPal, which he helped found, to uncover patterns of fraud.

“I was just always super annoyed when, every time you go to the airport, you had to take off a shoe or you had to go through all this security theater, which was both somewhat taxing but probably had very little to do with actual security,” Mr. Thiel said.

They brought in some software engineers.

“It was two and a half years after 9/11, and you’re starting a software company with people who know nothing about the C.I.A. or any of these organizations,” Mr. Thiel recalled.

It was all very cloak-and-dagger, in an Inspector Clouseau way. They decided to seek out John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who was dubbed the godfather of modern surveillance; Admiral Poindexter had been forced to resign as President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser after the Iran-Contra scandal broke. After 9/11, he worked at the Pentagon on a surveillance program called Total Information Awareness.

During the meeting, Mr. Thiel said he felt he was in the presence of a medal-festooned, Machiavelli-loving member of the military brass out of “Dr. Strangelove,” with “a LARPing vibe.”

“We had a hunch that there was a room marked ‘Super-Duper Computer,’ and if you went inside, it was just an empty room,” Mr. Thiel said. They feared their budding algorithm “would end up in a broom closet in the Pentagon,” so they moved on.

In 2005, Mr. Thiel asked Mr. Karp to be the frontman of a company with few employees, no contracts, no investors, no office and no functional tech. “It charitably could have been described as a work in progress,” Mr. Thiel said.

A brick building with large windows on a tree-lined street corner on a sunny day. The word Palantir appears in black lettering against the red brick. — Palantir’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif.Credit…Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Mr. Karp and his motley crew got a bunch of desks and explained to clients that they were unmanned because the (fictional) engineers were coming in later.

“God knows why Peter picked me as co-founder,” said Mr. Karp, who had to learn about coding on the job. “It was, in all modesty, a very good choice.”

Mr. Thiel explained: “In some ways, Alex doesn’t look like a salesperson from central casting you would send to the C.I.A. The formulation I always have is that if you’re trying to sell something to somebody, the basic paradox is you have to be just like them, so they can trust you — but you have to be very different from them so that they think you have something they don’t have.”

He said that Mr. Karp would not be suited to running Airbnb or Uber “or some mass consumer product.” But Palantir, he said, “is connected with this great set of geopolitical questions about the Western world versus the rising authoritarian powers. So if we can get our governments to function somewhat better, it’s a way to rebalance things in the direction of the West.”

“Normally,” Mr. Thiel continued, “these are bad ideas to have as a company. They’re too abstract, too idealistic. But I think something like this was necessary in the Palantir case. If you didn’t get some energy from thinking about these things, man, we would’ve sold the company after three years.”

Mr. Karp could not have been more of an outsider, to Silicon Valley and to Washington. He and his engineers had to buy suits for their visits to the capital. “We had no believers,” he said. “I kept telling Palantirians to call me Alex, and they kept calling me Dr. Karp. Then I realized the only thing they could believe in was that I had a Ph.D.”

The first few years, when tech investors were more interested in programs that let you play games on your phone, were rough. “We were like pariahs,” Mr. Karp said. “We couldn’t get meetings. If they did, it was a favor to Peter.”

With administrators in Washington, Mr. Karp recalled: “It was like, What is this Frankenstein monster doing in my office, making these wild claims that he can do better on things I have a huge budget for? How can it be that a freak-show motley crew of 12-year-old-looking mostly dudes, led by a pretty unique figure, from their perspective, would be able to do something with 1 percent of the money that we can’t do with billions and billions of dollars?”

“There’s nothing that we did at Palantir in building our software company that’s in any M.B.A.-made playbook,” Mr. Karp said. “Not one. That’s why we have been doing so well.”

He said that “the single most valuable education I had for business was sitting at the Sigmund Freud Institute, because I spent all my time with analysts.” When he worked at the institute in Frankfurt while getting his doctorate, Mr. Karp said, he would smoke cigars and think about “the conscious subconscious.”

“You’d be surprised how much analysts talk about their patients,” he said. “It’s disconcerting, actually. You just learn so much about how humans actually think.” This knowledge helps him motivate his engineers, he said.

How It’s Going

Mr. Karp said he likes to think of Palantir’s workers as part of an artists’ colony or a family; he doesn’t use the word “staff.” He enjoys interviewing prospective employees personally and prides himself on making hires in under two minutes. (He likes to have a few people around who can talk philosophy and literature with him, in German and French.)

“A lot of my populist-left politics actually bleed into my hiring stuff,” he said. “If you ask the question that the Stanford, Harvard, Yale person has answered a thousand times, all you’re learning is that the Stanford, Harvard, Yale person has learned to play the game.”

Even if he gets a good answer from a “privileged” candidate and a bad answer from “the child of a mechanic,” he might prefer the latter if “I have that feeling like I’m in the presence of talent.”

He views Palantirians like the Goonies, underdogs winning in the end. “Most people at Palantir didn’t get to do a lot of winning in high school,” Mr. Karp said at a company gathering in Palo Alto, to laughter from the audience.

He thinks the United States is “very likely” to end up in a three-front war with China, Russia and Iran. So, he argues, we have to keep going full-tilt on autonomous weapons systems, because our adversaries will — and they don’t have the same moral considerations that we do.

“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he said. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

“In fact,” he added, “given that we have parity technologically but we don’t have parity morally, they have a huge advantage.”

A portrait of Mr. Karp seated in a dim room close to a window with daylight streaming through. Half his face is illuminated. — Mr. Karp, who said he supports Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, described his politics as “populist-left.”Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

Mr. Karp said that we are “very close” to terminator robots and at the threshold of “somewhat autonomous drones and devices like this being the most important instruments of war. You already see this in Ukraine.”

Palantir has learned from some early setbacks.

In 2011, the hacker group Anonymous showed that Palantir employees were involved in a proposed misinformation campaign to discredit WikiLeaks and smear some of its supporters, including the journalist Glenn Greenwald. (Mr. Karp apologized to Mr. Greenwald.) Then, at least one Palantir employee helped Cambridge Analytica collect the Facebook data that the Trump campaign used ahead of the 2016 election.

A pro bono contract with the New Orleans Police Department starting in 2012 was dropped after six years amid criticism that its “predictive policing” eroded privacy and had a disparate impact on people of color.

“We reduced the rates of Black-on-Black death in New Orleans,” Mr. Karp said, “and we have these critics who are like, ‘Palantir is racist.’ I don’t know. The hundreds of people that are alive now don’t think we’re racist.”

Mr. Carville, a New Orleans pooh-bah, asserted that the partnership ended because of “left-wing conspiracy theories.”

Palantir’s rough start in Silicon Valley came about, in part, because many objected to its work with the Department of Defense.

In 2017, Google won a Pentagon contract, Project Maven, to help the military use the company’s A.I. to analyze footage from drones. Employees protested, sending a letter to the C.E.O., Sundar Pichai: “Google should not be in the business of war,” it read. Soon after, Google backed away from the project.

In response, Palantir shaded Google in a tweet that quoted Mr. Karp: “Silicon Valley is telling the average American ‘I will not support your defense needs’ while selling products that are adversarial to America. That is a loser position.” Palantir picked up the contract in 2019.

That same year, Mr. Thiel said that Google had a “treasonous” relationship with China. When Google opened an A.I. lab in 2017 in China, where there’s little distinction between the civilian and the military, he argued, it was de facto helping China while refusing to help America. (That lab closed in 2019, but Google still does business with China, as does Apple.)

“When you have people working at consumer internet companies protesting us because we help the Navy SEALs and the U.S. military and were pro-border — and you’re becoming incredibly, mind-bogglingly rich, in part because America protects your right to export — to me, you’ve lost the sheet of music,” Mr. Karp said. “I don’t think that’s good for America.”

Scott Galloway, a professor at New York University and an authority on tech companies, agrees that many Silicon Valley C.E.O.s have been virtue-signaling and pretending to care about the progressive political views of employees, but really would sell “their mother for a nickel.”

“They’re not there to save the whales,” Mr. Galloway said. “They’re there to make money.”

He added: “Some of these big tech companies seem to be engaged in raising a generation of business leaders that just don’t like America, who are very focused on everything that’s wrong with America.

“Alex Karp is like, ‘No, we’ll cash the Pentagon’s check and we’ll collect data on our enemies.’ He’s gone the entirely opposite way, and I think it was a smart move.”

Palantir’s “spooky connotations,” as one executive put it, dissipated quite a bit when the company went public in 2020 and took on more commercial business; its clients include Airbus, J.P. Morgan, IBM and Amazon.

Mr. Thiel said that while Palantir had a brief stint working on a pilot program for the National Security Agency, the company would not want to do any more work there: “The N.S.A., it hoovers up all the data in the world. As far as I can tell, there are incredible civil liberties violations where they’re spying on everybody outside the U.S., basically. Then they’re fortunately too incompetent to do much with the data.”

The company has started turning a profit, and the stock has climbed. After a triumphant earnings report this month, Palantir’s stock price jumped again.

“The share price gives us more street cred,” Mr. Karp said.

In 2020, after 17 years in Silicon Valley, Mr. Karp moved Palantir’s headquarters to Denver. “I was fleeing Silicon Valley because of what I viewed as the regressive side of progressive politics,” he said.

He thinks that the valley has intensified class divisions in America.

“I don’t believe you would have a Trump phenomenon without the excesses of Silicon Valley,” he said. “Very, very wealthy people who support policies where they don’t have to absorb the cost at all. Just also the general feeling that these people are not tethered to our society, and simultaneously are becoming billionaires.“

“Not supporting the U.S. military,” he said, in a tone of wonder. “I don’t even know how you explain to the average American that you’ve become a multibillionaire and you won’t supply your product to the D.O.D. It’s jarringly corrosive. That’s before you get to all the corrosive, divisive things that are on these platforms.”

Akshay Krishnaswamy, Palantir’s chief architect, agreed on their Silicon Valley critics: “You live in the liberal democratic West because of reasons, and those reasons don’t come for free. They act like it doesn’t have to be fought for or defended rigorously.”

A potted orchid sits atop a table in a workout room. — Mr. Karp’s workout room.Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

Items on a table include Rubik's Cubes, a sword, juggling balls and a novel by Len Deighton. — A few of his favorite things.Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

Mr. Karp said things had evolved. “I think there’s a different perception of us now a little bit. A lot of that was tied to Trump, ICE work. It built up and we were definitely outsiders. We’re still outsiders, but I feel less resistance for sure. And people have a better idea of what we do, maybe.” He added, “Defense tech is a big part of Silicon Valley now.”

The A.I. revolution, he said, will come with a knotty question: “How do you make sure the society’s fair when the means of production have become means that only 1 percent of the population actually knows how to navigate?”

I asked if he agrees with Elon Musk that A.I. is eventually going to take everyone’s jobs.

“I think what’s actually dangerous,” Mr. Karp replied, “is that people who understand how to use this are going to capture a lot of the value of the market and everyone else is going to feel left behind.”

Mr. Karp’s iconoclastic style and ironclad beliefs have inspired memes and attracted a flock of online acolytes — some call him Papa Karp or Daddy Karp. He has no social media presence, but his online fans treat him like a mystic, obsessing over the tight white T-shirts he wears for earnings reports, his Norwegian ski outfits, his corkscrew hair, his Italian jeans and sunglasses and his extreme candor. (In a recent earnings report, Mr. Karp dismissed his rivals as “self-pleasuring” and engaging in “self-flagellation.”)

He is not, as one colleague puts it, “a wife, kids and dog person.”

“I tend to have long-term relationships,” he told me. “And I tend to end up with very high IQ women,” including some who tell him he’s talking nonsense.

He prefers what he calls a German attitude toward relationships, where “you have a much greater degree of privacy,” he said, with separate bedrooms and “your own world, your own thoughts, and you get to be alone a lot.” There is much less requirement to “micro-lie” about where you were or whom you were with.

I asked Mr. Karp about his 2013 quote to Forbes that “the only time I’m not thinking about Palantir is when I’m swimming, practicing qigong or during sexual activity.”

He frowned, noting: “It should be tai chi. I don’t know why people always conflate tai chi with qigong. Yes, that was in my early days, when we were a pre-public company and I was allowed to admit I had sexual activity.”

So it’s true that the notion of settling down and raising a family gives him hives?

“There’s some truth in that,” he said. “This is how I like to live. See, I’m sitting here doing my freedom thing. I train. I do distance shooting.” He reads. “Who else has a Len Deighton spy novel next to a book on Confucian philosophy?”

Many of the doyennes of Washington society would love to snag the eligible Mr. Karp for a dinner party. He told me he has “a great social life.” But when I asked him what that is, he replied, “First of all, I’m a cross-country skier, so then I do all this training.”

He continued, “To have an elite VO2 max, an elite level of strength, it’s just consistency and the Norwegian-style training method.”

Some who know Mr. Karp said that the happiest they had ever seen him was last year when Mike Allen reported for Axios that the C.E.O.’s body fat was an impressive 7 percent.

Mr. Karp may be able to do more than 20 miles of cross-country skiing without being out of breath, but there are some sports at which, he admitted, he’s “a complete zero. For example, ball sports. I really suck at them.”

Unlike Mr. Musk and other tech lords, Mr. Karp is not into micro-dosing ketamine or any other drug. “My drug is athletics,” he said. “I love drinking, but now I’ve moved to drinking very little because what I’ve noticed is if you’re traveling all the time, the alcohol, it really affects your brain.” He’s on the road about 240 days a year.

In a Senate room, Elon Musk smiles at Mr. Karp. They are seated next to each other and wearing jackets and ties. — Mr. Musk and Mr. Karp at the forum on A.I. in Washington last year.Credit…Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Mr. Karp said of his dyslexia: “I think this is not getting less, it’s likely getting more. In 40 years, I’ll be unable to read.”

In New Hampshire, we had a lunch of lobster pasta — he kept his panic button on the table — and then went shooting on his property. He expertly hit targets with a 9-millimeter pistol from 264 yards. When an aide suggested that a photographer not shoot Mr. Karp in the act of shooting, he overruled the idea.

“Actually, honestly, guns would be much better regulated if you had someone who knows guns,” he said. “I’m not a hunter. I’m an artist with a gun.”

(Later, Mr. Karp pointed out that he had been shooting at targets that were about twice as far from him as Mr. Trump was from his would-be assassin. “There’s something really wrong with security for our future president, or maybe not future president,” he said. “All these people need a different level of security.”)

Mr. Karp believes the Democrats need to project more strength: “Are we tough enough to scare our adversaries so we don’t go to war? Do the Chinese, Russians and Persians think we’re strong? The president needs to tell them if you cross these lines, this is what we’re going to do, and you have to then enforce it.”

He thinks that in America and in Europe, the inability or unwillingness to secure borders fuels authoritarianism.

“I see it as pretty simple: You have an open border, you get the far right,” he said. “And once you get them, you can’t get rid of them. We saw it in Brexit, we see it with Le Pen in France, you see it across Europe. Now you see it in Germany.”

“They should be much stricter,” he continued. That, he said, “is the only reason we have the rise of the right, the only reason. When people tell you we need an open border, then they should also tell you why they’re electing right-wing politicians, because they are.”

“The biggest mistake — and it’s not one politician, it’s a generation — was believing there was something bigoted about having a border, and there are just a lot of people who believe that,” he said.

Weeks later, we were back in the Washington office, which is dubbed Rivendell, after a valley in Tolkien’s Middle-earth, and is filled with tech goodies like a Ping-Pong table, a pool table and a towering replica of Chewbacca.

We picked up our conversation about politics, talking about the swap of President Biden and Vice President Harris, the rise of JD Vance, the assassination attempt and the changed political landscape.

Mr. Karp concurred with his friend Mr. Carville on the problem of drawing men to the Democratic Party, saying, “If this is going to be a party complaining about guys and to guys all the time, it’s not going to succeed.”

Wearing noise-canceling headphones and a black cap, Mr. Karp holds a silver pistol with two gloved hands at his outdoor shooting range in the New England countryside. — At the shooting range on his property in New Hampshire. “I’m an artist with a gun,” Mr. Karp said.Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

He continued: “The biggest problem with hard political correctness is it makes it impossible to deal with unfortunate facts. The unfortunate fact here is that this election is really going to turn on ‘What percentage of males can the Democrats still get?’”

Describing himself as “progressive but not woke,” he said, “We are so unwilling to talk to the actual constituents that are voting for the Democratic Party who would probably strongly prefer policies that are more moderate.”

Given Mr. Karp’s blended racial identity, I wondered how he felt about Mr. Trump’s attack on the vice president’s heritage.

“I think people are most fascinated by the fact of this whole Black-Jewish thing,” he said. “I tend to be less fascinated by that.”

He added: “I think that people always expect me somehow to see the world in one way or another, and I don’t really understand what that means. I see the world the way I see it. I think, at the end of the day, if people want to choose what their identity is, then they choose it, and that’s their definition.”

I note that he recently made an elite list of Black billionaires.

He shrugged. “Some Black people think I’m Black, some don’t,” he said. “I view me as me. And I’m very honored to be honored by all groups that will have me.”

He added: “I do not believe racism is the most important issue in this country. I think class is determinate, and I’m mystified by how often we talk about race. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m not saying people don’t have biases. Of course, we all do, but the primary thing that’s bad for you in this culture is to be born poor of any color.”

He said he would support class-based affirmative action and declared himself “pro draft.”

“I think part of the reason we have a massive cleavage in our culture is, at the end of the day, by and large, only people who are middle- and working-class do all the fighting,” he said.

Since I had last seen him, Mr. Karp had gotten caught between two of the battling billionaires of Silicon Valley, lords of the cloud vituperously fighting in public over the possible restoration of Donald Trump.

According to an account in Puck, Mr. Karp was onstage with the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman at a conference last month in Sun Valley, Idaho, sponsored by the investment bank Allen & Company, when Mr. Hoffman called Mr. Thiel’s support for Mr. Trump “a moral issue.” Speaking up from his seat in the audience, Mr. Thiel sarcastically thanked Mr. Hoffman for funding lawsuits against Mr. Trump, which allowed the candidate to claim that he is “a martyr.”

Mr. Hoffman snapped back, “Yeah, I wish I had made him an actual martyr” — an unfortunate comment given what would later happen in Butler, Pa.

I asked Mr. Karp whether the encounter was as uncomfortable as it seemed.

“Well, I’m used to being uncomfortable,” he said. “I’m going to stick with my friends. I just feel the same way I always feel when Peter is under attack, which is: ‘This is my friend. I feel that my friend is being attacked, and I will defend him.’”

The fancy digital clock behind Mr. Karp’s desk, which tells time in German, had gone from “Es ist zehn nach drei” to “Es ist halb vier.”

It was time to go.

A moody portrait of Mr. Karp, who is shown mostly in shadow. — Mr. Karp said that while working at the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt, he learned things that were helpful to him later as a business leader.Credit…Ryan David Brown for The New York Times

Confirm or Deny

Maureen Dowd: You run the Twitter account Alex Karp’s Hair.

Alex Karp: I wish.

Your favorite movie is the classic kung fu flick “The 36th Chamber of Shaolin.”

One of my favorite movies.

You have 10 houses around the world, from Alaska to Vermont, from Norway to New Hampshire.

You have to reframe that as I have 10 cross-country ski huts.

You love the idea of Peter Thiel backing Olympic-style games where the athletes will dope out in the open.

Deny. I want the best cross-country skiers to win without doping.

You love to watch spy shows and German movies, and one of your favorite filmmakers is Rainer Werner Fassbinder.

Confirm.

You have 20 identical pairs of swim goggles in your office.

No longer. I used to. I gave up swimming. There’s an emptiness to it.

You commissioned a French comic book, “Palantir: L’Indépendance,” with yourself as the protagonist.

Oui!

You starred in a movie by Hanna Laura Klar in 1998, “I Have Two Faces,” where you looked like a young Woody Allen.

I look better than Woody Allen.

Your dissertation is about how people transmit aggression subconsciously in language, presaging the rise of the right in America and Europe.

Often, the more charismatic ideologies were, the more irrational they were.

The dissertation touched on expressing taboo wishes. Do you want to share some of those?

I would love to express taboo wishes with you, but not to your audience.

Sam Altman – The Intelligence Age

Kommentar verfassen

Source: https://ia.samaltman.com/

In the next couple of decades, we will be able to do things that would have seemed like magic to our grandparents.

This phenomenon is not new, but it will be newly accelerated. People have become dramatically more capable over time; we can already accomplish things now that our predecessors would have believed to be impossible.

We are more capable not because of genetic change, but because we benefit from the infrastructure of society being way smarter and more capable than any one of us; in an important sense, society itself is a form of advanced intelligence. Our grandparents – and the generations that came before them – built and achieved great things. They contributed to the scaffolding of human progress that we all benefit from. AI will give people tools to solve hard problems and help us add new struts to that scaffolding that we couldn’t have figured out on our own. The story of progress will continue, and our children will be able to do things we can’t.

It won’t happen all at once, but we’ll soon be able to work with AI that helps us accomplish much more than we ever could without AI; eventually we can each have a personal AI team, full of virtual experts in different areas, working together to create almost anything we can imagine. Our children will have virtual tutors who can provide personalized instruction in any subject, in any language, and at whatever pace they need. We can imagine similar ideas for better healthcare, the ability to create any kind of software someone can imagine, and much more.

With these new abilities, we can have shared prosperity to a degree that seems unimaginable today; in the future, everyone’s lives can be better than anyone’s life is now. Prosperity alone doesn’t necessarily make people happy – there are plenty of miserable rich people – but it would meaningfully improve the lives of people around the world.

Here is one narrow way to look at human history: after thousands of years of compounding scientific discovery and technological progress, we have figured out how to melt sand, add some impurities, arrange it with astonishing precision at extraordinarily tiny scale into computer chips, run energy through it, and end up with systems capable of creating increasingly capable artificial intelligence.

This may turn out to be the most consequential fact about all of history so far. It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!); it may take longer, but I’m confident we’ll get there.

How did we get to the doorstep of the next leap in prosperity?

In three words: deep learning worked.

In 15 words: deep learning worked, got predictably better with scale, and we dedicated increasing resources to it.

That’s really it; humanity discovered an algorithm that could really, truly learn any distribution of data (or really, the underlying “rules” that produce any distribution of data). To a shocking degree of precision, the more compute and data available, the better it gets at helping people solve hard problems. I find that no matter how much time I spend thinking about this, I can never really internalize how consequential it is.

There are a lot of details we still have to figure out, but it’s a mistake to get distracted by any particular challenge. Deep learning works, and we will solve the remaining problems. We can say a lot of things about what may happen next, but the main one is that AI is going to get better with scale, and that will lead to meaningful improvements to the lives of people around the world.

AI models will soon serve as autonomous personal assistants who carry out specific tasks on our behalf like coordinating medical care on your behalf. At some point further down the road, AI systems are going to get so good that they help us make better next-generation systems and make scientific progress across the board.

Technology brought us from the Stone Age to the Agricultural Age and then to the Industrial Age. From here, the path to the Intelligence Age is paved with compute, energy, and human will.

If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people.

We need to act wisely but with conviction. The dawn of the Intelligence Age is a momentous development with very complex and extremely high-stakes challenges. It will not be an entirely positive story, but the upside is so tremendous that we owe it to ourselves, and the future, to figure out how to navigate the risks in front of us.

I believe the future is going to be so bright that no one can do it justice by trying to write about it now; a defining characteristic of the Intelligence Age will be massive prosperity.

Although it will happen incrementally, astounding triumphs – fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics – will eventually become commonplace. With nearly-limitless intelligence and abundant energy – the ability to generate great ideas, and the ability to make them happen – we can do quite a lot.

As we have seen with other technologies, there will also be downsides, and we need to start working now to maximize AI’s benefits while minimizing its harms. As one example, we expect that this technology can cause a significant change in labor markets (good and bad) in the coming years, but most jobs will change more slowly than most people think, and I have no fear that we’ll run out of things to do (even if they don’t look like “real jobs” to us today). People have an innate desire to create and to be useful to each other, and AI will allow us to amplify our own abilities like never before. As a society, we will be back in an expanding world, and we can again focus on playing positive-sum games.

Many of the jobs we do today would have looked like trifling wastes of time to people a few hundred years ago, but nobody is looking back at the past, wishing they were a lamplighter. If a lamplighter could see the world today, he would think the prosperity all around him was unimaginable. And if we could fast-forward a hundred years from today, the prosperity all around us would feel just as unimaginable.

Apple’s New Passwords App May Solve Your Login Nightmares

Kommentar verfassen

Apple is launching its first stand-alone password manager app in iOS 18. Here’s what you need to know.

Apple’s latest iPhone software update, iOS 18, arrives today and includes a new app: Passwords. For the first time, Apple is taking your phone’s ability to save login details and putting them in a standalone app. It could help improve millions of people’s terrible passwords.

After years of being told you should create unique, strong passwords for every website and app you use, you probably fall into one of two camps: people that are fully signed up to the password manager life, or those still using “123456” for every other website.

A screenshot of the new Passwords app in iOS 18 on Apple's iPhone.

Apple’s new encrypted Passwords app is automatically included with iOS 18, and is a public-facing evolution of its Keychain and password-saving capabilities. The Keychain, which has existed for more than a decade, no longer has as prominent a home in the iPhone’s settings, and details previously saved there are being moved to the new app.

The launch of the password manager app, which will also be available on macOS Sequoia and iPadOS 18, may help improve people’s relationships with their passwords but also could, to varying degrees, challenge existing password managers.

“This move makes the app more visible to lay users and informs them about this secure method to store and manage passwords,” says Talal Haj Bakry and Tommy Mysk from security company Mysk. “You have a default password manager preinstalled on your device [that] provides end-to-end encryption when syncing data across devices.”

New Passwords

The Passwords app has a pretty barebones design. Six different tiles are presented when you open the app on an iPhone: All, Passkeys, Codes, Wi-Fi, Security, and Deleted. These are essentially the main functions of the app, allowing you to save each type of data within their relevant sections. The security section includes check-ups allowing weak and exposed passwords to be identified.

“This will definitely boost the adoption of this preinstalled app and bolster user security,” Bakry and Mysk say. They add that it presents the saved data “in a more organized way than the Settings app.”

Apple says the Passwords app uses end-to-end encryption to save your details, meaning nobody, not even Apple, knows what you have saved. Within the app, you can search for login details to your entries and set up groups to share passwords with other people.

Your saved login details are synced across Apple devices using iCloud, meaning the encrypted data is shared with Apple’s cloud servers and available on all of your Apple devices. Within Apple’s settings, you can turn off syncing passwords on a specific device. The app is locked using Face ID.

When using the Passwords app, any details you have previously saved in Keychain or AutoFill will be moved to the new location. This includes if you have used the Sign in with Apple login system on any websites or apps. It is unclear why Apple has decided to spin its Keychain system into a fully fledged password manager now, although the company has been building out the individual features over a number of years. (Apple has not responded to WIRED’s request for comment at the time of writing.)For many people, having a standalone password manager app from Apple could encourage better password practices. Siamak Shahandashti, a senior lecturer in the University of York’s cybersecurity and privacy research group, says the move from Apple may be a usability decision. Making Passwords visible could encourage people to take their passwords seriously.

“We need to design authentication systems for human beings,” Shahandashti says. “We cannot expect users to maintain a hundred accounts, for each of them [to] use a strong password. It’s actually the fault of the designers because these systems have not been designed for users considering the capability of an average human being.”

Death of the Password

Passwords are slowly dying. Enter the passkey. For the past couple of years, websites, apps, and phone manufacturers have been in the process of rolling out passkeys—a technology that replaces passwords, is more secure, and doesn’t require you to remember any complex login details. (Although passkeys still have some teething problems.)

Leona Lassak, a research assistant at Ruhr-University Bochum who has studied passkey adoption, says greater “visibility” of the Passwords app can help get the sign-in technology to a broader audience, one which might not use a password manager otherwise. Apple’s Passwords app could help with the perception and transition to passkeys, Lassak says. “There has been discussion about the need for passkey managers, because once we actually use them on websites, there’s probably going to be multiple for each website,” she says.

The app is also, at least subtly, encouraging the adoption of passkeys. Within Passwords’ settings, accessed through Apple’s System preferences, there’s the option to turn on “automatic” passkey upgrades, which will allow existing accounts to use passkeys when they are available.

Lock In

Password managers have existed for years and there are plenty of options you can use, from open source apps to browser-based management systems. Each comes with their own particular set of pros and cons.

Apple wading into the password management market by including a new app on millions of iPhones, Macs, and iPads could also impact the wider ecosystem. “There’s no question that Apple’s Passwords app would ‘sherlock’ third-party password managers—or make them less attractive,” say Bakry and Mysk, highlighting that people need to use iCloud to sync passwords in Apple’s system, and that those who are privacy conscious may not want this to happen automatically.

There’s also the risk of locking people into Apple’s password manager—at launch, there appear to be no options to export the saved data and use it in a commercial alternative. One competitor password manager has stressed that their software works on products “beyond” the “Apple ecosystem.” (People using Apple’s password management software on Windows devices can access saved details through iCloud for Windows.)

Ultimately, what password manager you use should reflect what type of software you want to support and the individual threats you may face. For many, Apple’s new app is probably better than not using a password manager at all.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-password-app-ios-18/

I Stared Into the AI Void With the SocialAI App

Kommentar verfassen

SocialAI is an online universe where everyone you interact with is a bot—for better or worse.

Robot Hands Adults in a Crowd Glitch Effect

The first time I used SocialAI, I was sure the app was performance art. That was the only logical explanation for why I would willingly sign up to have AI bots named Blaze Fury and Trollington Nefarious, well, troll me.

Even the app’s creator, Michael Sayman, admits that the premise of SocialAI may confuse people. His announcement this week of the app read a little like a generative AI joke: “A private social network where you receive millions of AI-generated comments offering feedback, advice, and reflections.”

But, no, SocialAI is real, if “real” applies to an online universe in which every single person you interact with is a bot.

There’s only one real human in the SocialAI equation. That person is you. The new iOS app is designed to let you post text like you would on Twitter or Threads. An ellipsis appears almost as soon as you do so, indicating that another person is loading up with ammunition, getting ready to fire back. Then, instantaneously, several comments appear, cascading below your post, each and every one of them written by an AI character. In the new new version of the app, just rolled out today, these AIs also talk to each other.

When you first sign up, you’re prompted to choose these AI character archetypes: Do you want to hear from Fans? Trolls? Skeptics? Odd-balls? Doomers? Visionaries? Nerds? Drama Queens? Liberals? Conservatives? Welcome to SocialAI, where Trollita Kafka, Vera D. Nothing, Sunshine Sparkle, Progressive Parker, Derek Dissent, and Professor Debaterson are here to prop you up or tell you why you’re wrong.

Screenshot of the instructions for setting up the Social AI app.

Is SocialAI appalling, an echo chamber taken to the extreme? Only if you ignore the truth of modern social media: Our feeds are already filled with bots, tuned by algorithms, and monetized with AI-driven ad systems. As real humans we do the feeding: freely supplying social apps fresh content, baiting trolls, buying stuff. In exchange, we’re amused, and occasionally feel a connection with friends and fans.As notorious crank Neil Postman wrote in 1985, “Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the history of communications knows that every new technology for thinking involves a trade-off.” The trade-off for social media in the age of AI is a slice of our humanity. SocialAI just strips the experience down to pure artifice.

“With a lot of social media, you don’t know who the bot is and who the real person is. It’s hard to tell the difference,” Sayman says. “I just felt like creating a space where you’re able to know that they’re 100 percent AIs. It’s more freeing.”

You might say Sayman has a knack for apps. As a teenage coder in Miami, Florida, during the financial crisis, Sayman gained fame for building a suite of apps to support his family, who had been considering moving back to Peru. Sayman later ended up working in product jobs at Facebook, Google, and Roblox. SocialAI was launched from Sayman’s own venture-backed app studio, Friendly Apps.

In many ways his app is emblematic of design thinking rather than pure AI innovation. SocialAI isn’t really a social app, but ChatGPT in the container of a social broadcast app. It’s an attempt to redefine how we interact with generative AI. Instead of limiting your ChatGPT conversation to a one-to-one chat window, Sayman posits, why not get your answers from many bots, all at the same time?

Over Zoom earlier this week, he explained to me how he thinks of generative AI like a smoothie if cups hadn’t yet been invented. You can still enjoy it from a bowl or plate, but those aren’t the right vessel. SocialAI, Sayman says, could be the cup.

Almost immediately Sayman laughed. “This is a terrible analogy,” he said.

Sayman is charming and clearly thinks a lot about how apps fit into our world. He’s a team of one right now, relying mostly on OpenAI’s technology to power SocialAI, blended with some other custom AI models. (Sayman rate-limits the app so that he doesn’t go broke in “three minutes” from the fees he’s paying to OpenAI. He also hasn’t quite yet figured out how he’ll make money off of SocialAI.) He knows he’s not the first to launch an AI-character app; Meta has burdened its apps with AI characters, and the Character AI app, which was just quasi-acquired by Google, lets you interact with a huge number of AI personas.But Sayman is hand-wavy about this competition. “I don’t see my app as, you’re going to be interacting with characters who you think might be real,” he says. “This is really for seeking answers to conflict resolution, or figuring out if what you’re trying to say is hurtful and get feedback before you post it somewhere else.”

“Someone joked to me that they thought Elon Musk should use this, so he could test all of his posts before he posts them on X,” Sayman said.

I’d actually tried that, tossing some of the most trafficked tweets from Elon Musk and the Twitter icon Dril into my SocialAI feed. I shared a news story from WIRED; the link was unclickable, because SocialAI doesn’t support link-sharing. (There’s no one to share it with, anyway.) I repurposed the viral “Bean Dad” tweet and purported to be a Bean Mom on SocialAI, urging my 9-year-old daughter to open a can of beans herself as a life lesson. I posted political content. I asked my synthetic SocialAI followers who else I should follow.

The bots obliged and flooded my feed with comments, like Reply Guys on steroids. But their responses lacked nutrients or human messiness. Mostly, I told Sayman, it all felt too uncanny, that I had a hard time crossing that chasm and placing value or meaning on what the bots had to say.

Sayman encouraged me to craft more posts along the lines of Reddit’s “Am I the Asshole” posts: Am I wrong in this situation? Should I apologize to a friend? Should I stay mad at my family forever? This, Sayman says, is the real purpose of SocialAI. I tried it. For a second the SocialAI bot comments lit up my lizard brain, my id and superego, the “I’m so right” instinct. Then Trollita Kafka told me, essentially, that I was in fact the asshole.One aspect of SocialAI that clearly does not represent the dawn of a new era: Sayman has put out a minimum viable product without communicating important guidelines around privacy, content policies, or how SocialAI or OpenAI might use the data people provide along the way. (Move fast, break things, etc.) He says he’s not using anyone’s posts to train his own AI models, but notes that users are still subject to OpenAI’s data-training terms, since he uses OpenAI’s API. You also can’t mute or block a bot that has gone off the rails.

At least, though, your feed is always private by default. You don’t have any “real” followers. My editor at WIRED, for example, could join SocialAI himself but will never be able to follow me or see that I copied and pasted an Elon Musk tweet about wanting to buy Coca-Cola and put the cocaine back in it, just as he could not follow my ChatGPT account and see what I’m enquiring about there.

As a human on SocialAI, you will never interact with another human. That’s the whole point. It’s your own little world with your own army of AI characters ready to bolster you or tear you down. You may not like it, but it might be where you’re headed anyway. You might already be there.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/socialai-app-ai-chatbots-chatgpt/

OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry Step – ChatGPT o1

Kommentar verfassen

The ChatGPT maker reveals details of what’s officially known as OpenAI o1, which shows that AI needs more

OpenAI made the last big breakthrough in artificial intelligence by increasing the size of its models to dizzying proportions, when it introduced GPT-4 last year. The company today announced a new advance that signals a shift in approach—a model that can “reason” logically through many difficult problems and is significantly smarter than existing AI without a major scale-up.

The new model, dubbed OpenAI o1, can solve problems that stump existing AI models, including OpenAI’s most powerful existing model, GPT-4o. Rather than summon up an answer in one step, as a large language model normally does, it reasons through the problem, effectively thinking out loud as a person might, before arriving at the right result.

“This is what we consider the new paradigm in these models,” Mira Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, tells WIRED. “It is much better at tackling very complex reasoning tasks.”

The new model was code-named Strawberry within OpenAI, and it is not a successor to GPT-4o but rather a complement to it, the company says.

Murati says that OpenAI is currently building its next master model, GPT-5, which will be considerably larger than its predecessor. But while the company still believes that scale will help wring new abilities out of AI, GPT-5 is likely to also include the reasoning technology introduced today. “There are two paradigms,” Murati says. “The scaling paradigm and this new paradigm. We expect that we will bring them together.”

LLMs typically conjure their answers from huge neural networks fed vast quantities of training data. They can exhibit remarkable linguistic and logical abilities, but traditionally struggle with surprisingly simple problems such as rudimentary math questions that involve reasoning.

Murati says OpenAI o1 uses reinforcement learning, which involves giving a model positive feedback when it gets answers right and negative feedback when it does not, in order to improve its reasoning process. “The model sharpens its thinking and fine tunes the strategies that it uses to get to the answer,” she says. Reinforcement learning has enabled computers to play games with superhuman skill and do useful tasks like designing computer chips. The technique is also a key ingredient for turning an LLM into a useful and well-behaved chatbot.

Mark Chen, vice president of research at OpenAI, demonstrated the new model to WIRED, using it to solve several problems that its prior model, GPT-4o, cannot. These included an advanced chemistry question and the following mind-bending mathematical puzzle: “A princess is as old as the prince will be when the princess is twice as old as the prince was when the princess’s age was half the sum of their present age. What is the age of the prince and princess?” (The correct answer is that the prince is 30, and the princess is 40).

“The [new] model is learning to think for itself, rather than kind of trying to imitate the way humans would think,” as a conventional LLM does, Chen says.

OpenAI says its new model performs markedly better on a number of problem sets, including ones focused on coding, math, physics, biology, and chemistry. On the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME), a test for math students, GPT-4o solved on average 12 percent of the problems while o1 got 83 percent right, according to the company.

Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke

Kommentar verfassen

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/22/24225972/ai-photo-era-what-is-reality-google-pixel-9

n explosion from the side of an old brick building. A crashed bicycle in a city intersection. A cockroach in a box of takeout. It took less than 10 seconds to create each of these images with the Reimagine tool in the Pixel 9’s Magic Editor. They are crisp. They are in full color. They are high-fidelity. There is no suspicious background blur, no tell-tale sixth finger. These photographs are extraordinarily convincing, and they are all extremely fucking fake.

Anyone who buys a Pixel 9 — the latest model of Google’s flagship phone, available starting this week — will have access to the easiest, breeziest user interface for top-tier lies, built right into their mobile device. This is all but certain to become the norm, with similar features already available on competing devices and rolling out on others in the near future. When a smartphone “just works,” it’s usually a good thing; here, it’s the entire problem in the first place.

Photography has been used in the service of deception for as long as it has existed. (Consider Victorian spirit photos, the infamous Loch Ness monster photograph, or Stalin’s photographic purges of IRL-purged comrades.) But it would be disingenuous to say that photographs have never been considered reliable evidence. Everyone who is reading this article in 2024 grew up in an era where a photograph was, by default, a representation of the truth. A staged scene with movie effects, a digital photo manipulation, or more recently, a deepfake — these were potential deceptions to take into account, but they were outliers in the realm of possibility. It took specialized knowledge and specialized tools to sabotage the intuitive trust in a photograph. Fake was the exception, not the rule.

If I say Tiananmen Square, you will, most likely, envision the same photograph I do. This also goes for Abu Ghraib or napalm girl. These images have defined wars and revolutions; they have encapsulated truth to a degree that is impossible to fully express. There was no reason to express why these photos matter, why they are so pivotal, why we put so much value in them. Our trust in photography was so deep that when we spent time discussing veracity in images, it was more important to belabor the point that it was possible for photographs to be fake, sometimes.

This is all about to flip — the default assumption about a photo is about to become that it’s faked, because creating realistic and believable fake photos is now trivial to do. We are not prepared for what happens after.

A real photo of a stream.

Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

A real photo of a person in a living room (with their face obscured).

Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

No one on Earth today has ever lived in a world where photographs were not the linchpin of social consensus — for as long as any of us has been here, photographs proved something happened. Consider all the ways in which the assumed veracity of a photograph has, previously, validated the truth of your experiences. The preexisting ding in the fender of your rental car. The leak in your ceiling. The arrival of a package. An actual, non-AI-generated cockroach in your takeout. When wildfires encroach upon your residential neighborhood, how do you communicate to friends and acquaintances the thickness of the smoke outside?

And up until now, the onus has largely been on those denying the truth of a photo to prove their claims. The flat-earther is out of step with the social consensus not because they do not understand astrophysics — how many of us actually understand astrophysics, after all? — but because they must engage in a series of increasingly elaborate justifications for why certain photographs and videos are not real. They must invent a vast state conspiracy to explain the steady output of satellite photographs that capture the curvature of the Earth. They must create a soundstage for the 1969 Moon landing.

We have taken for granted that the burden of proof is upon them. In the age of the Pixel 9, it might be best to start brushing up on our astrophysics.

For the most part, the average image created by these AI tools will, in and of itself, be pretty harmless — an extra tree in a backdrop, an alligator in a pizzeria, a silly costume interposed over a cat. In aggregate, the deluge upends how we treat the concept of the photo entirely, and that in itself has tremendous repercussions. Consider, for instance, that the last decade has seen extraordinary social upheaval in the United States sparked by grainy videos of police brutality. Where the authorities obscured or concealed reality, these videos told the truth.

The persistent cry of “Fake News!” from Trumpist quarters presaged the beginning of this era of unmitigated bullshit, in which the impact of the truth will be deadened by the firehose of lies. The next Abu Ghraib will be buried under a sea of AI-generated war crime snuff. The next George Floyd will go unnoticed and unvindicated.

A real photo of an empty street.

Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

A real photo inside a New York City subway station.

Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

You can already see the shape of what’s to come. In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the defense claimed that Apple’s pinch-to-zoom manipulates photos, successfully persuading the judge to put the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that zoomed-in iPhone footage was not AI-manipulated. More recently, Donald Trump falsely claimed that a photo of a well-attended Kamala Harris rally was AI-generated — a claim that was only possible to make because people were able to believe it.

Even before AI, those of us in the media had been working in a defensive crouch, scrutinizing the details and provenance of every image, vetting for misleading context or photo manipulation. After all, every major news event comes with an onslaught of misinformation. But the incoming paradigm shift implicates something much more fundamental than the constant grind of suspicion that is sometimes called digital literacy.

Google understands perfectly well what it is doing to the photograph as an institution — in an interview with Wired, the group product manager for the Pixel camera described the editing tool as “help[ing] you create the moment that is the way you remember it, that’s authentic to your memory and to the greater context, but maybe isn’t authentic to a particular millisecond.” A photo, in this world, stops being a supplement to fallible human recollection, but instead a mirror of it. And as photographs become little more than hallucinations made manifest, the dumbest shit will devolve into a courtroom battle over the reputation of the witnesses and the existence of corroborating evidence.

This erosion of the social consensus began before the Pixel 9, and it will not be carried forth by the Pixel 9 alone. Still, the phone’s new AI capabilities are of note not just because the barrier to entry is so low, but because the safeguards we ran into were astonishingly anemic. The industry’s proposed AI image watermarking standard is mired in the usual standards slog, and Google’s own much-vaunted AI watermarking system was nowhere in sight when The Verge tried out the Pixel 9’s Magic Editor. The photos that are modified with the Reimagine tool simply have a line of removable metadata added to them. (The inherent fragility of this kind of metadata was supposed to be addressed by Google’s invention of the theoretically unremovable SynthID watermark.) Google told us that the outputs of Pixel Studio — a pure prompt generator that is closer to DALL-E — will be tagged with a SynthID watermark; ironically, we found the capabilities of the Magic Editor’s Reimagine tool, which modifies existing photos, were much more alarming.

Examples of famous photographs, digitally altered to demonstrate the implications of AI photography.

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Neil Armstrong, Dorothea Lange, Joe Rosenthal

Google claims the Pixel 9 will not be an unfettered bullshit factory but is thin on substantive assurances. “We design our Generative AI tools to respect the intent of user prompts and that means they may create content that may offend when instructed by the user to do so,” Alex Moriconi, Google communications manager, told The Verge in an email. “That said, it’s not anything goes. We have clear policies and Terms of Service on what kinds of content we allow and don’t allow, and build guardrails to prevent abuse. At times, some prompts can challenge these tools’ guardrails and we remain committed to continually enhancing and refining the safeguards we have in place.”

The policies are what you would expect — for example, you can’t use Google services to facilitate crimes or incite violence. Some attempted prompts returned the generic error message, “Magic Editor can’t complete this edit. Try typing something else.” (You can see throughout this story, however, several worrisome prompts that did work.) But when it comes down to it, standard-fare content moderation will not save the photograph from its incipient demise as a signal of truth.

We briefly lived in an era in which the photograph was a shortcut to reality, to knowing things, to having a smoking gun. It was an extraordinarily useful tool for navigating the world around us. We are now leaping headfirst into a future in which reality is simply less knowable. The lost Library of Alexandria could have fit onto the microSD card in my Nintendo Switch, and yet the cutting edge of technology is a handheld telephone that spews lies as a fun little bonus feature.

We are fu**ed.

EVs Are Losing Up to 50 Percent of Their Value in One Year

Kommentar verfassen

https://www.wired.com/story/evs-are-losing-up-to-50-percent-of-their-value-in-one-year/

Some electric car brands are hemorrhaging value, with the worst losing as much as $600 a day. Learn which models to watch, why this is happening, and how you can game the market to your advantage.

Electric vehicle depreciation is something of a hot topic right now, and for good reason. On one hand, there are some fantastic deals to be had on the secondhand market, but on the other of course, there’s the thorny issue of some EVs losing half of their value in a single year.

Cars losing you a chunk of cash the instant they’re driven off the dealer lot is nothing new, especially at the pricier end of the market. And if you intend to keep your shiny new EV for a long time, then its worth after just a year or two matters far less. But what if you’ve experimented with your first EV then decided its range or your local charging infrastructure isn’t up to scratch, and want to sell within the first year? If that’s you, you’d better be prepared for a significant loss.

In a bid not to tar all EVs with the same brush, we’ve aimed to be balanced in our approach to discovering trade-in valuations. There’s plenty of color to be reported here, too—like the US dealer who actively warned our reporter against selling him their EV, or the story of a Mercedes EQE that lost more than $600 each day—but for now let us deliver the cold, hard numbers.

We are using two tools for this research. The first is an online appraisal system by Edmunds, the US automotive industry resource, and the second is Cap HPI, a vehicle valuation service for the UK auto trade. Let’s start with the UK electric trade-in landscape, then compare it with the US’s.

Main Offenders

Our first discovery was that, in the UK, various new electric cars lose 50 percent of their value in the first 12 months. Yes, you read that right—some EVs depreciate by 50 percent in a single year.

Now, this cannot be said of every EV, but Cap HPI data provided to WIRED by Parkers, a respected UK online car resource, revealed how six different EVs are all projected to halve in value after 12 months and 10,000 miles. These include the Audi e-Tron GT, which plummeted by 49 percent from £107,675 ($138,000) to £54,700 ($70,100), and the Ford Mustang Mach-E, which fell by 52 percent from £59,325 to £28,575. According to the data, a Polestar 2 would also lose 52 percent of its £52,895 sticker price in just 12 months.

The Tesla Model 3 fared only slightly better, falling by 45 percent in its first 12 months and 10,000 miles, while the Porsche Taycan fell by 49 percent and the Hyundai Ioniq 5 lost exactly half in the same period. These prices are all based on a midspec version of each car, since factors like battery size, trim level, and even paint color can have a marked effect on trade-in value.

Miley Face

But do you know what has less of an impact on depreciation? Mileage. If the long-range Polestar 2 mentioned above had covered 20,000 miles in its first year instead of 10,000—well above the annual UK average of just 7,000—its estimated trade-in value falls by only an extra £975, or a further 2 percent of its original price.

It’s a similar story with the Taycan. A 4S model with the long-range battery fell from £100,200 to £50,700 in its first 12 months and 10,000 miles. But if it had covered 20,000 miles in the same year it would have fallen by only another £2,650. Or, after two years and 20,000 miles it would be worth £44,175, according to the Cap HPI data. Age (beyond the first 12 months) has a similarly insignificant effect. A 10,000-mile Taycan is worth £50,700 after one year, or £46,600 after two years.

YouTuber The MacMaster has been charting the decrease in value of his own two-year-old Taycan, which dropped from a new price of £120,000 down to a Porsche dealership valuation of £44,650 in March earlier this year, leaving him in negative equity as he still owes approximately £64,700 on the EV. To make matters worse, the Porsche dealership giving the valuation supposedly refused to take his Taycan.

Remember, these are all estimated trade-in values. You would expect to earn more by selling the car privately, and you’d see the same car advertised for more by a dealer to ensure they make a profit.

Depreciation of the Tesla Model 3 also slows significantly after the first year. Cap HPI data states how a 2023 Model 3 Long Range would fall from £50,000 to £27,550 after one year and 10,000 miles, then by only an additional £2,500 after two years and 20,000 miles. Had the first 10,000 miles been spread over 18 months instead of 12, the price would fall by only an extra £825 in those six months.

The ability for Tesla, and other EV manufacturers, to update and upgrade a car’s software months or even years after it left the factory should help with long-term depreciation. We’ve seen how Tesla can push out major user interface upgrades, and even add entirely new features, over the air. Back in 2019, Jaguar pushed out a software update that claimed to increase the range of its I-Pace by up to 8 percent, and in 2022 the Polestar 2 gained Apple CarPlay—a feature that manufacturers used to charge handsomely for—via a free OTA update.

EV vs. ICE

As we said earlier, heavy day-one depreciation has long been par for the car ownership course. But how do year-old EVs stack up against similar internally-combusted cars? And more specifically, what happens when you compare two cars of a similar size and price from the same manufacturer? Cap HPI data has the answers and, again, the results are best viewed sitting down.

When comparing a gas-powered Audi Q7 55 with an electric Audi e-tron 55 SUV, both one year old and with 10,000 miles, the gas-powered car is worth 42 percent more after 12 months, despite costing less when new.

This is also true with lower-value cars. Cap HPI data showed how, after three years and 30,000 miles, a gas-powered Volkswagen Golf has a 46 percent price premium over an electric Golf.

We expected to find a similar difference between the gas-powered Porsche Panamera and electric Porsche Taycan. However, Cap HPI data suggests similar, midlevel 4S variants of each lose a similar amount of value over two years and 20,000 miles. The Panamera fell from £93,140 to £63,250, while the Taycan dropped from £84,030 to £53,000.

Auto America

Now for the US prices. According to Edmunds, a 2022 Porsche Taycan Turbo with 10,000 miles (well under the US annual average of 14,000) was worth about $106,000 at the time of writing in July 2024. That’s about $50,000 below what it would have cost new, not including optional extras, which pump up the retail price but tend not to affect resale value.

Historical data produced by Edmunds shows how the car’s value briefly rose from $129,000 to almost $131,000 between August and October 2023, but has fallen markedly since, tumbling by as much as $4,000 per month between November 2023 and February 2024 before dropping a further $10,000 over the next five months.

The valuation tool states: “This vehicle’s value is likely to decrease within the next month. Time is not on your side if you’ve been waiting to sell/trade for maximum value.” WIRED found just such a Taycan for sale in Los Angeles for $120,000, suggesting a dealer profit of roughly $13,000 before any negotiation.

Although initial depreciation isn’t as brutal in the US as the UK, there are still plenty of deals to be had. WIRED found a fully-loaded 2020 Taycan Turbo with just 5,000 miles on the clock for $92,000—a saving of $86,000 on the original purchase price. That’s the equivalent of more than $17 per mile in depreciation.

A 2023 Polestar 2 Long Range Single Motor with 10,000 miles on the clock has a trade-in value of $30,500, according to the Edmunds appraisal tool. This increases to $32,500 if sold privately, and the tool states an estimated dealer price of $35,000. The trade-in value represents a $20,000 or 40 percent drop from the car’s approximate retail price.

As with the Taycan, Edmunds says the Polestar 2’s value is trending down, but interestingly it increased in three of the previous eight months to July 2024. During our research WIRED saw how, in some cases, Edmunds would suggest holding onto the vehicle, since prices were on the up. As one EV specialist stressed to us, car values constantly change regardless of how they are powered.

Covid Consequences

The used-car market was turned on its head in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, as production slowed, key components such as microchips became scarce, and secondhand prices rose. According to iSeeCars, a US car search and research company, the effects are still being felt, and all cars held their value better in 2023 than in 2019. Prior to the pandemic, the average car would lose 50 percent of its value in five years, the company said, but by late 2023 this had fallen to 38.8 percent.

However, electric cars are performing less well, losing an average of 49.1 percent of their value in five years, according to analysis of more than 1 million 2018-model-year cars sold between 2022 and 2023.

A June 2024 study, also from iSeeCars, found used EV prices had fallen below gas-powered cars for the first time. Having analyzed more than 2.2 million used cars between May 2023 and May 2024, iSeeCars found the average used EV had fallen from $41,000 to $28,800, while the average gas car had fallen only slightly, from $32,700 to $31,400.

“It’s clear used-car shoppers will no longer pay a premium for electric vehicles, and in fact consider electric powertrains a detractor, making them less desirable—and less valuable—than traditional models,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst from iSeeCars.

Secondhand Supremacy

While undoubtedly a concern for anyone who plans to sell their nearly-new EV, the data is great news for secondhand buyers. From a £5,000 ($6,400) Renault Zoe and £12,000 ($15,000) Citroen e-C4 to a $25,000 Polestar 2 or a $30,000 Jaguar I-Pace, there are amazing deals to be had. And, what’s more, EV batteries are lasting longer than expected, according to Recurrent, whose community of 20,000 EV drivers states just 2.5 percent of battery packs have been replaced outside of manufacturer recalls.

It’s common knowledge among EV buyers that replacing a failed battery pack can be incredibly expensive. According to Recurrent, replacing an EV battery out of warranty costs between $6,500 and $20,000.

The fear of coughing up more cash than the car is worth to swap out a broken pack lingers in the mind of any driver whose EV is no longer protected by its manufacturer’s battery warranty, which often lasts for eight years or 100,000 miles. That said, battery failure is rare, and many aftermarket warranty providers now include EV battery cover, according to the RAC, a British breakdown company.

And the Loser Is …

Yet despite EV batteries lasting longer than expected, year-one depreciation horror stories remain. The most acute eample we’ve seen was of a Mercedes EQE run for six months by TopGear. An anonymous call to a Mercedes dealer revealed it had lost £40,000 ($51,000) in just three months and 4,500 miles. That’s close to 50 percent in 12 weeks, or the equivalent of about £480 ($615) per day.

Parkers data provided to WIRED told a less extreme story, but still revealed how a midrange Mercedes EQE 350 is estimated to plummet from a retail price of £89,290 to just £49,500 in its first 12 months. A gas-powered Mercedes E-Class also fell to just under £50,000 after one year, but it cost £20,000 less to start with.

Why Is This Happening?

Car depreciation is nothing new, especially at the luxury end of the market; anyone who has shelled out six figures for a German executive sedan will know what steep losses feel like.

Factor in the even higher costs of electric cars and their optional extras, plus the omnipresent concerns of EV range and charging infrastructure—then look at how quickly EVs are improving with every facelift, with new models gaining extra range, performance, and charging speed over their predecessors—and soft residuals are bound to occur.

Consider too how many of the EVs grabbing depreciation headlines right now are examples of first-generation technology. The Porsche Taycan, Audi e-tron, and Mercedes EQ families are all first attempts by legacy manufacturers caught napping by Tesla and, more recently, by a slew of low-cost, state-backed upstarts from China. They are the original, non-3G iPhones of their day and are now already being replaced by facelifted versions that go much farther and charge more quickly.

Discounts on new EVs also have an effect on the used market. Tesla is well known for its wildly fluctuating prices, but others have slashed prices recently, too. WIRED found official Porsche dealerships in the UK offering several brand-new (but previous-generation) Taycans with a £20,000 ($25,000) discount on their £110,000 list price. One example, a GTS Sport Turismo was being offered with a £33,500 discount.

With the new 2025 Taycan having only just arrived, discounts on last year’s tech are to be expected, and that’ll twist the knife even further on used prices, as well as on a secondhand market already filling up with three-, four- or five-year-old EVs that have just reached the end of their lease deal.

So, What Should You Do?

Despite rampant depreciation, EV sales are still on the up. They accounted for 18.5 percent of all new vehicle sales in the UK in July, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, up 18.8 percent on the previous year, and are outselling plug-in hybrids 2 to 1. According to Edmunds, 6.8 percent of new vehicles sold in the US in May were fully electric, four times that of plug-in hybrids.

For buyers who can charge at home—and perhaps benefit from associated tax incentives, too—buying a new EV can still be a sound financial decision, providing you intend to keep it for the long term. Buying the car outright, or with a bank loan, and selling it within 12 months will likely leave you significantly out of pocket. But, as the data in both the US and UK shows, prices tend to stabilize through subsequent years.

The best advice? Buy secondhand, unless you can truly afford to not care otherwise, and enjoy your bargain EV—complete with its low running costs and minimal maintenance requirements—for the half-decade or more still on the battery warranty.

The Catch of Temu in Europe – July 2024

Kommentar verfassen

The Catch of Temu in Europe

Temu, the Chinese e-commerce platform, offers products at remarkably low prices, which raises concerns about its business practices. One significant issue is the undervaluation of parcels entering the EU. Estimates suggest that around 65% of parcels are deliberately undervalued in customs declarations to avoid tariffs, which undermines local businesses and creates an uneven playing field [1]. Additionally, Temu employs a direct-to-consumer model, sourcing products directly from manufacturers in China, allowing them to benefit from bulk discounts and reduced shipping costs [2].

Benefits for the Chinese State

The low pricing strategy of Temu serves multiple purposes for the Chinese state. Firstly, it helps expand China’s influence in global e-commerce by increasing the market share of Chinese companies abroad. This can lead to greater economic ties and dependency on Chinese goods. Secondly, by facilitating the export of low-cost products, Temu contributes to the Chinese economy by boosting manufacturing and logistics sectors. Lastly, the data collected from users can be leveraged for insights into consumer behavior, which may benefit Chinese businesses and potentially the state itself in terms of economic planning and strategy [1].

Overall, while Temu’s low prices attract consumers, they also raise significant regulatory and ethical concerns in Europe, prompting scrutiny from authorities regarding compliance with local laws and standards.

Deeper Analysis of Future Benefits for the Chinese State

Temu’s aggressive pricing strategy in Europe not only serves immediate commercial interests but also aligns with broader strategic goals of the Chinese state. Here are several potential future benefits for China:

Economic Expansion and Market Penetration:
By establishing a strong foothold in European markets through low prices, Temu can facilitate the expansion of Chinese goods into new territories. This not only increases sales volume but also enhances brand recognition and loyalty among European consumers. As more consumers become accustomed to purchasing Chinese products, it could lead to a long-term shift in buying habits, favoring Chinese brands over local alternatives.
Strengthening Supply Chains:
Temu’s model emphasizes direct sourcing from manufacturers, which can help streamline supply chains. This efficiency can be replicated across various sectors, allowing China to become a dominant player in global supply chains. By controlling more aspects of production and distribution, China can mitigate risks associated with international trade tensions and disruptions, ensuring a more resilient economic structure.
Data Collection and Consumer Insights:
The platform’s operations will generate vast amounts of consumer data, which can be analyzed to gain insights into European consumer behavior. This data can inform not only marketing strategies but also product development, allowing Chinese manufacturers to tailor their offerings to meet the specific preferences of European consumers. Such insights can enhance competitiveness and drive innovation within Chinese industries.
Geopolitical Influence:
By increasing its economic presence in Europe, China can leverage its commercial relationships to enhance its geopolitical influence. Economic ties often translate into political goodwill, which can be beneficial in negotiations on various fronts, including trade agreements and international policies. This strategy aligns with China’s broader goal of expanding its influence globally, as outlined in its recent political resolutions emphasizing the importance of state power and common prosperity.
Promotion of Technological Advancements:
As Temu grows, it may invest in technology to improve logistics, customer service, and user experience. This could lead to advancements in e-commerce technologies that can be exported back to China, enhancing domestic capabilities. Moreover, the emphasis on technology aligns with China’s ambitions to become a leader in areas such as artificial intelligence and data analytics, as highlighted in its national strategies.
Cultural Exchange and Soft Power:
By making Chinese products more accessible and appealing to European consumers, Temu can facilitate a form of cultural exchange. As consumers engage with Chinese brands, they may also become more receptive to Chinese culture and values, enhancing China’s soft power. This cultural integration can help counter negative perceptions and foster a more favorable view of China in the long term.

In conclusion, Temu’s low pricing strategy is not merely a tactic for market entry; it is a multifaceted approach that can yield significant long-term benefits for the Chinese state. By enhancing economic ties, gathering valuable consumer data, and promoting technological advancements, China positions itself to strengthen its global influence and economic resilience in an increasingly competitive landscape.

TheIdea – The Innovation Agency

DIEIDEE InnovationsAgentur – Innovation!

Archiv des Autors: innovation

Anyone Can Buy Data Tracking US Soldiers and Spies to Nuclear Vaults and Brothels in Germany

The Internet Archive’s Fight to Save Itself

AI Lab

Alex Karp – Palantir

Editors’ Picks

Inspired by Tolkien

How It Started

How It’s Going

Confirm or Deny

Sam Altman – The Intelligence Age

Apple’s New Passwords App May Solve Your Login Nightmares

New Passwords

Death of the Password

Lock In

I Stared Into the AI Void With the SocialAI App

OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry Step – ChatGPT o1

Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke

EVs Are Losing Up to 50 Percent of Their Value in One Year

Main Offenders

Miley Face

EV vs. ICE

Auto America

Covid Consequences

Secondhand Supremacy

And the Loser Is …

Why Is This Happening?

So, What Should You Do?