Transcription
This book, in a sense, will likely make everyone who reads it feel a bit let down by the cover. I thought this book should be read by philosophers. At least, people like me who have read a certain amount of philosophy. There's an explosion of anger, like, "You guys aren't taking any risks at all!" This person is someone who understands philosophical matters very well. Alex Karp's anger is directed at Silicon Valley. There's no talk of improving democracy through checks and balances, or that technology will liberate us from labor. I can sympathize with that, even though it's on a scale of 1/1000th or 1/10,000th of what they're doing. Good evening. No, I'm sorry. I thought we had already started and I've been talking for several minutes. It's been a while since I've been on YouTube, so I pressed the wrong button. Well, I'd like to re-record this today. Today, as the title suggests, the first part will not be our usual rambling and casual chat, but rather a serious discussion with public significance. As the title indicates, Alex Karp and Mischa, a person who is also an executive at Palantir Technologies, have co-authored a book called "Technological Republic," which is currently a hot topic. You can probably find out how it's become a topic by following my tweets or searching, but as I quoted in my tweet, Palantir's official account, meaning the company's official account, tweeted a summary of this book, which is quite a radical summary. This summary has been auto-translated worldwide and is being heavily criticized, or rather, debated with mixed reviews. However, this book has already been translated into Japanese, and I have read the Japanese translation. I know that talking about how evil Palantir is, or things like that, is popular, but when you read it, it's not really like that. Rather, it makes you wonder why Palantir's summaries are so cut-and-dried and seem so evil. Perhaps there's a strategy behind it, but the overall impression is quite different. Since Palantir's "Technological Republic" is currently receiving a lot of attention, I believe it's appropriate to create a short promotional video about it, whether you plan to read it or not. So, thank you for joining me today. This book, "Technological Republic," is available on Amazon for Kindle, so you might find it easier to understand if you buy and read it while listening to this broadcast. Now, about this person, Alex Karp. I'm not that familiar with him, but as you can easily find by searching online, he has a rather unusual and special career. Born in 1967, he's four years older than me, and was born in New York. His father was Jewish and his mother was African American. Basically, during his student days, he studied philosophy, not technology. He first studied classical philosophy at Harvard, then law at Stanford, and then went to Germany. Frankfurt, when you think of Frankfurt, you might think of the Frankfurt School, and it was indeed a hub of German sociology where figures like Jürgen Habermas, who recently passed away, were active. He earned his doctorate in philosophy there. In fact, when he received his doctorate in Frankfurt, he was researching Habermas. Therefore, he is fundamentally someone with an academic philosophical career. In a way, he is far more academic about philosophy than I am. In the 2000s, for reasons I don't fully understand, he transitioned into business and co-founded Palantir with Peter Thiel. Palantir is a data analysis company, but unlike typical Silicon Valley IT companies, it is closely involved with the defense industry. In fact, the book mentions that Palantir was founded in the wake of the impact of 9/11. Karp himself seems to have this perception, and it appears that from that point on, they actively collaborated as an IT company when the US military was deployed in Afghanistan. Recently, and this might be well-known online, the US Department of Defense announced a new strategic support system using AI, and Palantir is developing it. Therefore, Palantir is, in a sense, a company that is a new kind of weapons contractor. Alex Karp, who is the co-founder and CEO, is someone with a philosophical background, as I mentioned. And he has now published a book. As I said earlier, Palantir's official summary contains some very radical statements, which has surprised everyone and sparked debate.
So, about this book, I read it. I thought, "This is serious. Tech elites are dominating the world, and if they just distribute basic income, everything will be fine." But when I read it, it was completely different. As I tweeted, it's more of a humanities book. What does that mean? Basically, in the late 20th century, philosophy engaged in critiques of nation-states. The current Silicon Valley is an extension of those critiques of nation-states and governments, but ultimately, while they criticized, they didn't offer new values. And because they didn't, what's happening is that everyone is just creating social media and games. It's a book that asks, "Is this okay?" That's the central theme of the book. So, it's quite different from what you might imagine when you think of IT. This is a very significant point. In that sense, it might disappoint tech people. They might think, "This kind of book? I thought it would be about how we tech people can change the world, about a bright future, and how we can overcome democracy." It's completely different. In fact, it's extremely grounded. It doesn't talk about improving democracy through technology, or how technology will liberate us from labor, as tech people often say. Rather, it was a very relatable type of book for me. It's a book I could connect with. This was the first thing that surprised me. People who read humanities books will likely have a greater impact from this, but if you haven't read humanities, you might not understand. In short, this is not a libertarian book; it's a communitarian book. It's the type of book that argues for the necessity of nation-states. The overarching themes are critiques of postmodernism and liberalism. It's a critique of the critique of nation-states. And it's not just a critique of right-wing ideology, but rather a critique of postmodernism from the latter half of the 20th century, meaning a critique of value relativism, and a critique of the critique of nation-states and communities. It's very understandable that he was influenced by Habermas. He strongly believes in civic publicness and shared death. Regardless of whether you're right-wing or tech-oriented, the current younger generation, who say things like "It's okay to have various ways of thinking," and "Everything is diversity," is very frustrated by such superficiality. You're probably all saying things about it without reading it, but you'll understand when you read it. This is a completely different book from what is being discussed in the world today. However, as I mentioned earlier, the basis for the current discussion is Palantir's official tweet, which contains very radical statements. I don't quite understand why Palantir's official account is doing such cut-and-paste-like videos. As I also wrote in a tweet earlier, for example, the argument that conscription is necessary is not something that is discussed as necessary in the book. The word "conscription" appears very little when searched. And where it does appear, it's in indirect quotes, like "someone is arguing that..." or in parentheses, not as the author's own assertion. While it is quoted in a historical context, the author himself does not advocate for the revival of conscription. And about AI, well, in a sense, everyone will be disappointed when they read it. You might think, "How radical are the AI discussions?" The book does mention how Palantir has worked with the Department of Defense. However, it's written in a way that criticizes other Silicon Valley companies for not taking any risks. And when they say they're not taking risks, it's fine if they're doing something for peace, but they end up just saying they don't work with the military or the government. Instead, they're developing delivery apps, social media, games, and so on. The argument is that technology should be used for more public purposes, and that they are taking risks and doing so, even though they are criticized. So, it's not a logic that advocates for AI in the military. I'm not defending it. When you read it normally, that's what it says. Karp's stance is that "We are taking risks and doing public work. What are companies like Google, who refuse to cooperate with the military, doing?" The focus is more on that. Google is quite a target, and there are passages that satirize YouTube. It says things like, "While we're doing this, YouTube is making so much money, so is that really public?" So, in that sense, it's really a humanities book. For example, this passage is quite scathing. On page 136 (this might differ slightly on Kindle or in the Japanese translation), it says that in 2011, when Palantir was struggling to build a good software platform by dispatching engineers to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and collaborating with the US military and coalition forces there, what were people in Silicon Valley doing? The top product at the time was a social game, "Zynga," which was very popular and had a market capitalization of $700 million. Another topic at the time was Groupon. Zynga and Groupon attracted global attention, while Palantir received very little. The book asks, "Which was right?" This is indeed Alex Karp's anger towards Silicon Valley. Please don't send me criticisms of Palantir or paste them. I'm well aware of them. Based on those criticisms, I read this book this afternoon thinking it would be problematic, but it turned out to be nothing of the sort. This program is specifically because I read it and found it to be different. I'm simply stating honestly what I found after reading it. If you say, "No, it can't be like that," I can only say, "But that's what I found after reading it." I believe I'm not looking at it with colored glasses or being brainwashed by Alex Karp, but rather, the things that people think are written are simply not there. For example, there's no mention of basic income, no mention of singularity, and no talk of AI surpassing humans. The argument is that because AI will surpass humans, discussions are needed on how to use AI for public purposes, but people are running away from the government's use of AI. The book states, "We are taking risks." Of course, there are issues with surveillance societies and the defense industry. And I completely agree that Palantir, which develops systems like Project Maven, is evil. However, Karp's frustration stems from something else, which can be understood by reading the text. It's a call to commit to reality. It's not about superficiality. It's not about the easily understandable topics that everyone expects from Palantir. So, what about Palantir's recent tweets? They posted about 22 tweets. For example, one tweet says, "Silicon Valley has a symbiotic relationship with the nations it has benefited. Tech elites in Silicon Valley have an obligation to actively participate in national defense." The expression here is very strong. While "symbiotic relationship" is fine, it also says to think about national defense. Yes, that's what it says. Another tweet says, "We must oppose the current administration." This is also about not just developing apps. And that makes sense when you read the text. The third tweet says, "Free email alone is insufficient." This is also true. Despite the immense wealth accumulated by companies like Google, what benefits do we receive? Free email? There must be more that can be done with technology. This is mentioned several times in the book. For example, it quotes David Graeber and others. After all the talk of an IT revolution, what do we have in our hands? Only social media and games. Shouldn't science and technology have made our lives much better? Where did that go? This is a common complaint. And this is discussed in this book. So, it's not like I'm defending it. The fourth point is that "the limitations of mere rhetoric have been exposed. To win a free and democratic society, more than moral appeals are needed." This ultimately means that if war breaks out, it's over. So, in that sense, it's saying quite ordinary things overall. However, conversely, it's saying very ordinary things, so let me return to the book's content from the tweets. The discussion about AI is almost entirely about its use in war, with no other aspects mentioned. Even when it talks about war, the virtual enemy is clearly China, and the criticisms are quite abstract. There's no talk of China having specific ambitions or needing to fight here. While China is clearly indicated as a virtual enemy or a geopolitically hostile nation several times, it's extremely abstract. Russia's presence is also almost nonexistent. There's no discussion about conflict in the Middle East. In that sense, there are almost no concrete geopolitical discussions. There's also no talk of the conflict between communism and democracy, or East-West confrontation. In that sense, the discussion feels very American. In other words, Alex Karp's concerns are about protecting America. Is America okay as it is? This is a book for Americans, urging them to do their best. So, while the title might suggest Palantir is plotting world domination, the conclusion is that it's not that ambitious. Perhaps it's boring? No, it's not. It allows you to understand what Alex Karp is concerned about and what frustrates him, and how that translates into the capabilities of the company Palantir. So, if you're expecting discussions about cryptocurrencies cooling down, democracy disappearing in the 22nd century, or labor disappearing, there's none of that. But conversely, I found that very refreshing. After all, if you've done serious philosophy, you can't say such things. This person is indeed a very serious and grounded individual. In that sense, he is someone who understands philosophical matters very well. And ultimately, the idea that nation-states will simply disappear is unrealistic. What will come after that? Nothing will come, and you'll just be playing with social media and games. In reality, your actions are just not taking risks. So, it's not about being right-wing or left-wing. He also talks passionately about how in the 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement, certain figures took great risks to protect the nation. He contrasts that with the present: "What about now? When the issue of Israel and Gaza arose, are the university presidents protecting the students who sided with Gaza?" There's an explosion of anger, like, "You guys aren't taking any risks at all!" What is this world? In that sense, it's surprisingly good. It's not about right-wing issues, but rather a call to take risks and have convictions. This book consistently talks about having convictions. Oh, and by the way, despite the title "Technological Republic," there's surprisingly little talk about technology. This is the key point. So, this book is completely different from what people are discussing. I don't know how it will be received, but for those who expect something bizarre from a serious book, it will likely be a letdown. Also, as a fellow contemporary, I found this to be very true. Karp repeatedly argues that American values should be revived, but he doesn't specify what those American values are. He doesn't mention Christian values, for example. He does mention that in American history, engineers have played a significant role. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was an engineer, and Vannevar Bush, whom we recently introduced on LibTech, is also discussed extensively at the beginning of the book. He played a crucial role in connecting scientists and the defense industry during World War II. However, he doesn't concretely define American values, although he has a positive image of them. In that sense, he himself is likely empty in a way, but he has a sense of urgency that this emptiness cannot continue. He doesn't say things like "WASP." After all, he's not a WASP himself. As I mentioned earlier, his father is Jewish and his mother is African American. In that sense, there's no message about returning to an old America, like J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy." So, it's also understandable from reading the book that Alex Karp himself is grappling with some kind of dilemma, even though he makes many definitive statements. He also talks a lot about Germany and Japan, which became a topic of discussion in Japan. According to the Palantir summary tweet, the post-war weakening of Germany and Japan must be corrected. Germany's weakening is an excessive correction, and Europe is now paying a high price for it. Similarly, if the extremely lenient peace constitution imposed on Japan is maintained, the balance of power in Asia will be disrupted. Yes, he did say that. He clearly stated that Germany is no longer macho, which is why Ukraine is being attacked. He also said that while it's good that Japan became pacifist after the war, maintaining it even now is likely disrupting the original balance in Asia. Furthermore, he writes that for Japan and Germany to change, the public's aversion to military force must be overcome by political leaders. In that sense, Palantir and the current administration have a high degree of synergy. He did write that. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Google is a significant target. By the way, Apple is also a target. He questions whether the iPhone can truly be called a great invention of civilization. While the iPhone has certainly changed our lives, it has narrowed our trust in human potential. Regarding Google, there are numerous criticisms. In 2022, YouTube generated $959 million in advertising revenue targeting 31.4 million children under 12. Instagram generated $801 million from children of the same age. The book states, "We must stand up and direct our anger at the misuse of culture and capital. We must not be complicit in such folly." So, it's quite passionate. He's angry that Silicon Valley's capital and technological prowess are concentrated in social media. And I believe this anger is largely justified. Of course, as I've repeated, I oppose Palantir providing AI technology to the military-industrial complex and surveillance society. And I believe caution is warranted when the CEO of Palantir, which has become a global weapons contractor for the Department of Defense, writes a book that intervenes in international politics. However, that's a prerequisite. That's the prerequisite, but I agree that we must direct our anger at this folly of generating revenue through advertising to children on social media. So, this is not about competition. From Palantir's or Alex Karp's perspective, they have repeatedly stated that they have taken risks and worked hard on truly important security matters, while others have turned away. The book also states that, as I mentioned earlier, it's quite a humanities book. Tech and business people might find it boring, but for those who enjoy contemporary thought and sociology, it's a subject of observation, showing that a generation like this has emerged. For example, it dedicates a significant portion to criticizing Edward Said. It discusses how, while his book "Orientalism" was good, the atmosphere it created has paralyzed people. Such a book is unheard of. In that sense, it's interesting. Furthermore, a crucial point is that his political stance is highly problematic. His premise is that humanity has lived in a period of relatively fewer wars since World War II, and that this was achieved due to America's overwhelming military power. He believes that the world will not continue as it is unless America maintains its overwhelming military superiority. This leads to the argument that we must not lose to China. In that sense, he has an unconditional and extremely strong trust in American values and American justice. I find this unusual for someone born in 1967, but it's likely related to his life experiences. This is a very distinctive characteristic. It's not about the Cold War structure. If it were about the Cold War, the argument would be that the military balance between America and the Soviet Union prevented war. But that's not his thinking. He believes that America's overwhelming military power has prevented war. Therefore, even in a world where AI-based deterrence, rather than nuclear deterrence, will be important in the future, he believes America must maintain its overwhelming military advantage. Based on this conviction, he has likely become actively involved in the American defense industry. And yet, this person, who earned his doctorate under Habermas and dedicates a significant portion of his book to critiquing Edward Said, is fascinating. While Peter Thiel is influenced by René Girard's philosophy, it's rare to find a CEO who writes such a philosophical book. In that sense, I became very interested in Alex Karp. Moreover, his citations and criticisms, as far as I understand them, are quite accurate. When tech or business people cite philosophy, it often feels superficial, as if they had someone else research it for them, connecting "X said this" and "Y said that." But this person is different. It's clear he has read them and understands them. So, this is interesting. Thank you for sharing this for free. I thought it was worth promoting, which is why I'm doing this program for free. As I've said repeatedly, this book only looks at America, and it strongly believes that America is the most progressive in history, the most open, and that the world is free because of America's military power. I cannot agree with that to that extent. I cannot agree that America is absolute. Furthermore, regarding military security issues, the EU's defense spending as a percentage of GNP is vastly different from America's, and he writes that this is unfair. He also writes that AI is becoming the key to security in the next era, and that Silicon Valley individuals who are running away from it are essentially free riders. He argues that this is morally wrong. While there are many points I disagree with, the root of his anger is understandable. That's why I was asked why he supports Israel. I agree. The word "Israel" itself probably doesn't appear. The word "Israel" appears in the context of university presidents not taking appropriate action against demonstrations criticizing Israel after the Hamas attack on Israel. However, there's no discussion of Israel's invasion of Gaza itself. This is mentioned in Chapter 5, and immediately before this description, there's an argument that universities should protect the freedom to express beliefs that one does not hold. Perhaps Karp believes that while it's natural to be right, one must also protect the freedom to express beliefs about Gaza, and that university presidents should have acted accordingly. That's probably it. Regarding China, as I mentioned earlier, there are almost no specific criticisms. Xi Jinping stayed with a host family in America when he was young and liked Hemingway, even going to Cuba to order a cocktail mentioned in "The Old Man and the Sea." This anecdote is introduced, suggesting that Xi Jinping admires America and that we should do the same. However, there's nothing beyond that. China is essentially a vague presence as a virtual enemy. Oh, and I forgot to mention this, but the introduction to "Technological Republic" is available for free on Kindle. Although the introduction is very short, it generally reflects the author's beliefs. Reading it is recommended. In fact, the introduction is quite radical and concise. It begins by stating, "The West, or Western civilization, or the liberal democratic world, is facing its final judgment. Nations have lost ambition and interest in the potential of science and technology, and innovation in various fields, from medical space travel to military software, is declining, creating an innovation gap with the illiberal world." However, the main text doesn't analyze this in detail. As I've said repeatedly, it's primarily about the anger of his contemporaries and those younger than him in Silicon Valley who are not interested in national or public issues, don't take risks, and are only developing and profiting from social media and games. There's not much geopolitical or technological analysis of this part. Rather, it talks about how things used to be, and how there used to be closer communication between the government and the private sector in America, even in the early days of the internet. It questions why it has become like this. In that sense, it's an anger directed at the state of America. Overall, it's a critique of the generation younger than him. Therefore, it's not a book where Palantir discusses America's strategy for world domination. If you pick out certain parts, like the defense industry or surveillance society, or how facial recognition technology could be used to reduce crime but there are "noisy people" in America, then you might think Palantir and Alex Karp are problematic. However, it's important to read the entire book. Reading the entire book is important because it reveals the underlying narrative that supports Karp's individual claims. The narrative is essentially about his anger at his American contemporaries who are not interested in public affairs, are not trying to create a responsible new society, and are only focused on making money. This is what it's all about. And it makes sense. Conversely, if someone were to try to persuade Karp, who holds these views, they would need to acknowledge that Karp believes publicness is important and that technology should be used for more public purposes. However, his concept of publicness is limited to security and the expansion of American values. Therefore, it's necessary to criticize that aspect. It's good to use Silicon Valley technology for public purposes, and government-private cooperation is necessary. But should it be for the expansion of American values? And is there only one future for humanity, which is liberal democracy? These are the kinds of questions that could be raised. In that sense, liberals who can debate with Alex Karp are necessary. Simply talking about diversity doesn't lead anywhere; it's just saying anything goes, which is a form of shirking responsibility. Karp believes that we should stop talking about mere diversity and rebuild the nation. He is aware that he will be criticized for this, but he is willing to take risks. In that context, to counter Karp's arguments, it's not enough to simply say that the defense industry is bad or that it's dangerous. We need to present different values and different concepts of the nation. As he writes at the end of the introduction, "Many leaders today, not just CEOs, avoid engaging in debate and refrain from speaking out on ideology, values, and politics because they don't want to be attacked in the public sphere." I completely agree with this. In Japan, too, people hesitate to express their views on the nation or their values and say, "This is how the world should be," because they fear being criticized. So, many people have come to think, "I don't understand politics at all. I just want to create services that make everyone happy." But if that's the case, society will only get worse. He is saying that. However, based on that premise, discussions that criticize Karp's worldview are necessary. We need such a broad framework. As I've said repeatedly, this is completely different from the recent discussions about how technology will advance democracy or how labor will disappear due to technology. It's much more grounded. It points out that people in the tech industry are running away from ideological thinking. Perhaps this also includes AI evangelists who believe that if they just develop technology, everything will somehow work out. So, it's best to read this book understanding that it's different from typical tech books. I thought his concept of publicness might support his belief in military expansion. It might support it, but it's not directly evident in the book. It doesn't have a "This is so Catholic" feel. In that sense, the arguments are quite secular. As I mentioned earlier, he argues for the need for American values and the rebuilding of the nation, but he doesn't go into much detail. It's not like, "Wow, you found a good book." It's suddenly appearing. It's suddenly appearing. "Technological Republic" is currently a huge topic online. It's an international topic. Why? Because, as I said at the beginning, Palantir's official summary makes it sound like it contains very radical statements, and that summary has been circulating, sparking lively debate worldwide. It's as if Palantir has finally published this book. People are saying that the world Palantir aims for is one where only elites rule the world, and everything is about conscription and the military-industrial complex, where everyone dies. But that's not what it says. So, reading is important. As I said earlier, if you take only the radical parts and condense them into short sentences, you could say that Palantir's summary isn't lying. However, as I mentioned, some statements attributed to Karp are not his own. While the summary isn't 100% false, the impression it gives is quite different. In that sense, reading the whole thing made me think, "Ah, I see." The Japanese translation of "Technological Republic" was released about a month ago, but for some reason, it has suddenly become a hot topic online, so I decided to read it. So, while it's titled "Urgent," the urgency is only mine, not necessarily a general urgency. Anyway, it was a book that turned out to be different when I read it. Is it easy to read? Yes, the Japanese translation is easy to read. It flows well. Yes. Did you perhaps buy the phenomenon? No, I didn't buy the phenomenon. I read the Japanese translation. I did read it. Yes, but considering what I read, the Japanese translation is much softer, and if someone said the English version is extremely radical, I'd have to apologize. But I don't think that's the case. Well, it's true that in today's world, if you take each point individually, for example, he says that public officials' salaries are too low. With such low salaries, only extremely wealthy people can do the job, so public servant salaries should be raised. If you take each point individually, you might think, "What is he talking about?" But when you understand the underlying concerns, you realize, "Ah, this is the kind of person he is." And ultimately, what he's thinking is that nation-states need to be revived. But his problem, as I've repeated, is that he only looks at America. He's probably only interested in America. That's his biggest weakness. He went to Germany, so at least he has a European perspective beyond America, but I suspect he doesn't have much awareness of other countries' concepts of nationhood or their values. Sandel is quoted. Since he's a communitarian, they are likely similar. Well, in a sense, I was a bit let down, but it was a good kind of letdown. That's how it was. So, that concludes the discussion about Karp. The rest is just casual chat, so feel free to listen as you please. What I want to say is that while issues like the military-industrial complex are indeed profound, it's easy to label things like "Antitrust is good, Palantir is evil, OpenAI is a bit bad." While that's simple and perhaps ultimately necessary, understanding Karp's logic and how it works is crucial. That's why I think it's important. I haven't bought Palantir's stock, and I won't, but reading the book goes beyond such simple judgments. If I had bought the stock, it would have been a joke. It's funny how it ended with a punchline. I was inspired by Palantir, so that's part of it. But if I ended it by saying that, it would just be taken out of context. So, no. Let me get some wine. To go back to the beginning of today's three-hour talk, I've been saying for a long time that I can understand what Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, is saying. And that's risky for me. Normally, Palantir is just a military company, or rather, that's how it's normally perceived. And the book written by its founder, which turns out to be understandable when you read it, is, in a normal sense, unacceptable. But I felt compelled to say it because, fundamentally, Karp's motivation is that everyone wants to avoid being attacked by others, and there's no desire to do anything significant for the world. He's angry that he's taking risks. While my actions are on a scale of 1/1000th or 1/10,000th of his, I can still sympathize with that. Even in my era, everyone wants to avoid being attacked by others, so they don't say anything. That's all there is. And I ask myself, "Are you fulfilling your role as an intellectual and a commentator by doing that? Are you satisfied with the power you've been given?" I don't think so at all. And I'm sure this will be taken out of context, saying that I sympathize with Alex Karp, who is involved in the military, but I felt that the anger towards a world that has become so irresponsible was something I understood. And because I understood it, I felt compelled to do this broadcast. I thought, "When I read it, it's different." Of course, I think it's wrong that he went into the military, and it's wrong that he only looks at America. But as I said earlier, the book is permeated by a different kind of anger. Why are the people in Silicon Valley so irresponsible? They're just making money. They're not taking any risks. They're just avoiding criticism. That's what's written throughout, and I found myself sympathizing with that. I shouldn't sympathize, but I know I shouldn't. But that's how it is. To go back to the beginning, I'm very drunk now and rambling, but I was speaking logically at first. But if I distill it down to the core, it's like this. By saying these things, I'm only increasing my enemies. But I think I'm probably the only one in Japan saying this. It's not an exaggeration to say that I'm probably the only one in Japan who has the mentality to read a book by the CEO of Palantir, who has a doctorate in philosophy, and think, "I can understand what this person is saying." That's why I'm broadcasting today. This is not about Alex Karp's terminology. And perhaps there are very few people in Japan who can read it this way. Maybe even in the world. Everyone is just looking at Palantir's official summary tweet and saying various things, but if you read it properly, isn't it different? Of course, Palantir might be extremely evil. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years, this broadcast will be unearthed, and it will be said, "This is a Palantir critic," and my entire career will be negated. It will be said that I showed leniency towards Palantir. And perhaps Palantir will commit massacres. If they do, then it will be said, "You were an idiot for sympathizing with them back then. You were foolish." I understand that too. I have to accept that kind of evaluation from the future, because I don't know. Palantir might be extremely evil. It might become humanity's greatest enemy. However, what I want to record at this moment, in 2026, is that at this stage in 2026, before such a future is visible, it appears understandable. It appears that his anger is understandable. Of course, I might be severely judged by the future for this, but I felt I should say it. That's what this broadcast is about. So, with that, the broadcast is ending. If you found it interesting or good, please subscribe and like. And please spread it around. Also, please support my commentary. Without that, I can't do things like this. So, that's about it. Thank you all very much for joining me today. Thank you, everyone. Good night. It was interesting. Good night. S.