In a New York Times op-ed, Karp wrote that concerns about the dangers of A.I. were “not unjustified,” but its development should not be halted because, like it or not, we are now stuck in an A.I. arms race. And that, per Karp, means people in the U.S. tech industry should enthusiastically embrace links with the U.S. military.

“We must not…shy away from building sharp tools for fear they may be turned against us,” Karp wrote. “Our hesitation, perceived or otherwise, to move forward with military applications of artificial intelligence will be punished.”

This is not a new stance for Karp, who said earlier this year that employees unhappy with the data-wrangling company’s military contracts should leave. “We want people who want to be on the side of the West, making the West a better society,” he said at the time. After all, when Google employees forced that company to pull out of a Pentagon A.I. project in 2018, it was Palantir that jumped in to fill the gap.

And it’s not just Karp pushing this line. Notably, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has also loudly denounced calls for an A.I.-development pause, arguing that it would only benefit China’s A.I. efforts. Like Karp, Schmidt has skin in the game, with his VC firm Innovation Endeavors investing in companies such as Rebellion Defense, a military A.I. firm with U.S. Air Force contracts.

Today also brought another sign of a resurgent tech military-industrial complex, with the U.S. Commerce and Defense departments agreeing to “expand collaboration to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor defense industrial base.” The gist is that the two departments will coordinate their investments in developing the U.S. semiconductor sector, so the Chips Act ends up producing “semiconductor chips in America that our military relies on.”

Of course, the U.S. military-industrial complex has achieved great things in the past. The internet itself began life as a project in the DOD-funded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And it may well be that China’s military A.I. progress is so energetic that it merits similar coordination between the military and industry on the other side of the world—though if that is the case, then the knockout evidence isn’t public.

But I would point out two things. First, beware the power of self-interest in those calling for greater links between the U.S. military and tech sector. And secondly, remember the rest of the world.

As the Trump presidency demonstrated, the U.S. may not always be seen as a reliable partner, even in places like Europe. Even during the Obama presidency, which was generally much better received abroad, the revelations of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden caused outrage among U.S. allies, who were horrified that their citizens and governments were being spied upon by the U.S. American intelligence’s ongoing ability to compel American tech companies to hand over the personal data of foreigners continues to foster uncertainty over those companies’ ability to operate in Europe.

Tying the tech sector to the military doesn’t just raise ethical questions—it could put those tech firms in a very awkward position if the U.S. becomes seen in a less friendly light by today’s partners. So tread lightly.

More news below.

Want to send thoughts or suggestions to Data Sheet? Drop a line here.

David Meyer

NEWSWORTHY

Microsoft earnings. Microsoft’s share price fell by more than 3% after its latest earnings report showed slowing cloud-revenue growth. CEO Satya Nadella: “We remain focused on leading the new A.I. platform shift, helping customers use the Microsoft Cloud to get the most value out of their digital spend, and driving operating leverage.” As the Guardian reported, analysts noted that Microsoft seemed to be commercializing generative A.I. more successfully than rival Google (whose earnings report yesterday was nonetheless much better received on Wall Street).

EU internet shutdowns. What will happen if major platforms such as TikTok and X/Twitter don’t effectively remove hate speech, as demanded of them by the EU’s new Digital Services Act? Politico reports that a bunch of global and European digital rights organizations have asked the European Commission—which will enforce the law—to confirm that outright bans won’t be on the table. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton and French President Emmanuel Macron have previously talked about shutting down social media services in some circumstances.

EV charging showdown. With Tesla’s electric-vehicle charging network seemingly set to become the standard in the U.S., rival automakers including GM, Mercedes, and Stellantis have announced the formation of a new, not-Tesla EV-charging joint venture. As Reuters reported, the JV doesn’t yet have a name, but the aim is to roll out 30,000 chargers on major highways and in cities. Some of the companies involved, such as GM and Mercedes, have already signed on to adopt Tesla’s charging tech, so the new network will support both that and a rival called the Combined Charging System.

ON OUR FEED

“X has been working on climate challenges for more than a decade, with half of our current moonshots focusing on climate change–related issues.”

—Alphabet’s moonshot factory, which has been called X since a rebrand from “Google X” seven-and-a-half years ago, uses another X to remind the world of its existence

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Elon Musk tells companies to buy more advertising on Twitter/X if they want to keep their verified status—and he’s even cutting the price, by Christiaan Hetzner

Alphabet’s longest-serving CFO Ruth Porat promoted, stock surges over 6% on earnings beat, by Stephen Pastis

There may be less to Meta’s White House A.I. pledge than meets the eye, by Jeremy Kahn

Microsoft rolls Bing Chat out to a wider audience, by Chris Morris

GOP primary candidates offer crypto slogans—but no serious policy proposals, by Jeff John Roberts

San Francisco’s office vacancy apocalypse shows signs of easing as A.I. companies start pouring in: ‘We feel like it’s the bottom,’ by Bloomberg

BEFORE YOU GO

Street View returns to Germany. When Google Maps introduced Street View to Germany in 2010, it elicited a visceral reaction in the cradle of data protection law. Some people objected strongly to their buildings being shown to people who weren’t walking past, and although Google allowed them to request the blurring of their facades, lawsuits ensued and Google withdrew the service the following year, leaving extremely stale imagery in place. (Street View cars returned to German streets in 2014, but only to keep Maps up to date.)

Now Street View is back. In a blog post, the company reminded Germans that Street View images would contain only blurred faces and license plates. Google’s local data protection authority in Germany (the Hamburg watchdog—uniquely in Europe, every German state has one) has also published a post on the matter, giving it an official seal of approval.

All of which is a great excuse to recall how Yandex, Russia’s answer to Google, once got into trouble over its mapping service in Turkey. As reported back in 2012, Yandex’s systems tried to comply with Turkish law by blurring people’s faces, but they accidentally also blurred the ubiquitous visage of Kemal Atatürk, the father of the nation. Defacing Atatürk’s image was also illegal, so—much as Google once tried to manually blur out German building facades—Yandex had to manually unblur each poster and banner bearing Atatürk’s picture.