Palantir is pretty core to the Surveillance Society in several supposedly Democratic countries. More in general just about all companies in that space such as the NSO Group makers of the Pegasus software for remote hacking of smartphones are invariably unethical
Similarly the whole business of Investment Banking is pretty unethical, and that definitely includes most Hedge Funds, the latter never being household names.
To add to this, the difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist is the difference between "What can I do for my country?" and "What can my country do for me?"
It absolutely makes sense for a Patriot to be critical of what's wrong with her or his country because they want it to be better, whilst Nationalists who just want to gain from the prestige of their country are absolutelly against anything that would damage said prestige.
Far-right nutters are invariably either Nationalist or, as in this case, Traitors.
German tourists in Spanish resorts are the ones who will go out at night to put their towels on the pool chairs to reserve them for the next day, something which only ever works because other people are too polite to just thrown the towels away when they get there in the morning.
In my own experience living in a couple of countries in including big tourism destinations, people from bigger and wealthier countries have a bigger tendency to behave as entitled wankers who think that they own the place when out of their country than people from smaller or poorer countries, so in touristic places you get for example more Germans, Brits and Americans doing "I don't care for others" stuff than say Dutch people or Greeks (whilst, curiously, in their own countries they tend not to behave like that, or at least not as overtly so).
Whilst being from a country with delusions of grandeur seems to make them more likely to exist (or at at least more likely to feel free to act like that), all nationalities have wankers.
The Zionists have entered the Holocausting stage of their Genociding.
More broadly, I would expect UBI to trigger a golden age of invention and artistic creation because a lot of people would love to spend their time just creating new stuff without the need to monetise it but can't under the current system, and even if a lot of that would be shit or crazily niche, the more people doing it and the freer they are to do it, the more really special and amazing stuff will be created.
Also the energy for those datacenters has to come from somewhere and non-renewable options (gas, oil, nuclear generation) also use a lot of water as part of the generation process itself (they all relly using the fuel to generate the steam to power turbines which generate the electricity) and for cooling.
It varies massivelly depending on the ML.
For example things like voice generation or object recognition can absolutelly be done with entirelly legit training datasets - literally pay a bunch of people to read some texts and you can train a voice generation engine with it and the work in object recognition is mainly tagging what's in the images on top of a ton of easilly made images of things - a researcher can literally go around taking photos to make their dataset.
Image generation, on the other hand, not so much - you can only go so far with just plain photos a researcher can just go around and take on the street and they tend to relly a lot on artistic work of people who have never authorized the use of their work to train them, and LLMs clearly cannot be do without scrapping billions of pieces of actual work from billions of people.
Of course, what we tend to talk about here when we say "AI" is LLMs, which are IMHO the worst of the bunch.
Just thinking out loud, I'm wondering if there's not a mix of two innovations - the big innovation such as whole new software or hardware to do something that wasn't possible to do before or at least not in that way and small innovation, i.e. incremental improvements.
In Tech, companies usually start with one big innovation (consumer OS for Microsoft, web search with automated crawling for Google, universal discussion forum for Facebook and so on) and after that mostly do smaller innovations on it. Whilst they often have a couple more big innovations in them (for example Android OS for Google and Office for Microsoft) they seem to eventually run out of such innovations or maybe just become too much "play it safe" when it comes to them so don't really do the break-through big innovations anymore.
I believe corporatisation destroys the environment in a company for big innovation (certainly it matches my own experience in working in all sizes of company) - it's a lot easier, ntaural and safer for a big company with a large infrastructure, big costs and an internal preponderance of well-entrenched managers who have their own internal fiefs and spend their time on internal company politics, to keep on milking the existing cow than to try and come up with something completely different and the very mindset of the company changes from "try crazy ideas" of the small, poor and desperate startup to the relying on steady and safe income streams that more appeals to the bean counters that take over those companies when they get big enough.
Under a sales model, you need a steady stream of small innovation on the core product to keep the steady and safe income stream going - people need to be convinced to buy the latest and greatest version of the product so it general need to offer something more than the last one, and although marketting can be used to convince people to buy a new version which has little more than the last one (look at iPhones of late), as the product matures there is less and less small innovation on it that's actually usefull so there is less and appeal for consumers to get the latest version and that income stream falls over time.
Both subscription models and paid-by-advertising upend that need for even small innovation - a company doesn't need to regularly make a new and improved version of their original big innovation, they just need to keep on getting the steady stream of revenue from their existing product. I would say that this appeals even more to bean counters that the small innovation cycle since it's even more predictable, hence you see big companies shifting to it even in things were it makes no sense for the product itself.
Pro-Oligarchy vs Fascists, IMHO.
That's why they are superior!
Whatever this guy supposedly architects, it ain't software.