Birbla

Discussion summary

Canadian AI strategy debates include concerns over reliance on US cloud providers and Palantir's software capabilities. Some believe Canada can develop domestic solutions, while others see US dominance as unavoidable.

What the discussion says

  • Canada's domestic AI products are challenging but possible with improvements.
  • US and China dominate the market; others face significant hurdles.
  • Concerns over US cloud reliance for critical infrastructure.
  • Palantir's software is seen as less complex and possibly underqualified.
“Canada should be able to pull it off, there's much to improve on.”
— bigyabai
“Most critical infrastructure relies on US cloud products.”
— tamimio

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • The idea we're going to stop people like special forces and intelligence buying the software they want to run on on prem, air gapped stacks that they control in the name of sovereignty is silly.
    by crimsoneer
  • Wtf does Palantir have to do with AI. Nobody at Palantir can train an LLM from scratch or even fine tune.
    by another_twist
  • I don't think the Canadian government is dropping a big contract on a company that is 24 months old vs one 24 years old, more or less.
    by nickdothutton
  • I mean no public strategy should include secret bills, Palantir or no Palantir.

    If you're idealogically opposed to Palantir, how will a home-grown Palantir help? It would likely do the same things Palantir does but with a Canadian Alex Karp

    by altmanaltman
  • Instead, buy domestic product, and out in the open.
    by ClearwayLaw
  • Canada shouldn't include Palantir at all.
    by jschrf
  • I don’t know the specifics of this case, but in Canada, calls like this (all wrapped up in the flag), usually come from Canadian companies hoping for some sort of sole sourced contract that they have no business getting.

    So so perhaps we should be excluding American companies at this time, but in the name of competition and openness, we should allow bids from our real allies, such as the Europeans or the Asians.

    by tomComb
  • I don't think there's a government in the world, including the US, that should allow Palantir anywhere near their data or systems. I consider Palantir a national security threat. I also feel this way about McKinsey (and Bain, BCG, etc).

    I also think any form of platform AI usage to be a national security threat in the absence of stringent controls over that data and the platform. At some point I think governments and companies will wake up to this and demand local LLMs or, in the very least, a cloud platform within their jurisdiction, ownership and control.

    The 1980s and 1990s ushered in this idea of "small government", privatization and public-private partnerships that I think was a huge mistake with catastrophic consequences. It's simply letting the foxes into the hen house. It leads to regulatory capture, a revolving door and a massive government-to-private wealth transfer.

    What's funny is that a lot of this stems from a now throughly debunked idea of the "tragedy of the commons" [1].

    [1]: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/03...

    by jmyeet

Explore Birbla archives