The Head of Palantir UK Louis Mosley has warned that artificial intelligence could become the world’s most powerful censorship tool.
In an address delivered at this week’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference, Mosley cautioned that AI risks turning into the ultimate arbiter of truth. “AI, in the wrong hands, could become the most powerful tool of censorship, tyranny and dehumanisation,” he said. “Already, we have seen how AI can be aligned for political correctness, whether it goes by the acronym CCP or DEI,” he cautioned, pointing to real-world instances where AI has been manipulated to align with ideological biases.
This development, he cautioned, is particularly dangerous in democratic societies where freedom of speech and open debate are foundational. AI, wielded improperly, could replace genuine discourse with curated, politically aligned “truths”, leading to an era of digital authoritarianism. Echoing the theories of Eric Weinstein, who coined the term “Distributed Idea Suppression Complex” (Disc), the Palantir chief described modern censorship as decentralised, yet ruthlessly effective. Rather than a single authority enforcing restrictions, today’s censorship operates through a network of fact-checkers, NGOs, media organisations, and academic institutions. “There used to be one Star Chamber. Now there are as many as the stars in the sky,” he observed.
Mosley argued that this model is more dangerous than classical authoritarian censorship. Those who challenge sanctioned narratives on issues such as Covid-19 origins or migration policies are not just silenced, but discredited, deplatformed, and — in extreme cases — rendered “unpersons”. “Those who run afoul of the Disc are heaped with opprobrium, denounced as dangerous or backward, their employment and reputation threatened,” he said.
The Palantir executive warned that AI could supercharge this process, making censorship nearly impossible to detect. “The Disc’s ability to bully and dictate terms is fading,” he said, “but as it collapses, we must be vigilant against new forms of censorship and resist the ever-present temptation to do unto them what they have done unto us.”
Mosley argued that, with the internet dismantling old power structures, traditional media and state-backed narratives have struggled to maintain control. As a result, the “tech that empowered the Disc also empowers the rebels,” he noted. Citing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Mosley claimed that AI-led censorship could be fought against: “If DOGE has its way, the censors’ funding and political power will fade — in the US at least”.
The Palantir executive’s address comes just days after his colleague Alex Karp issued a similar warning to Left-wing and centrist parties across the West. Singling out the Democrats, Karp claimed that the party is “committing suicide” over its refusal to engage with “real-world concerns”. “It’s because we’re not allowed to admit the truth. We literally have to say that anything ever uttered by the opposition must be wrong, including fundamental things like national security and border control. This self-imposed blindness is leading to collapse.”
Despite these warnings, Mosley expressed optimism that technology could also be harnessed for liberation. Just as the printing press once empowered the masses against entrenched elites, new AI models could be developed to protect free speech, ensure transparency, and prevent the monopolisation of information. He urged policymakers, technologists, and citizens to remain vigilant against the creeping tide of digital suppression.
“History tells us that one path could lead to anarchy, chaos, and violence,” he warned. “Persevere, and we may yet reach that paradise described by Milton centuries ago: ‘When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained.’”
Mosley added: “The door to that future is now open if we choose to enter.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo to prevent censorship and protect free speech – we should leave all the power of control to Musk and Trump with no brakes or limits???
Nobody is suggesting such comically manichean view of the problem, but if you’re going to insist on an answer to that rather absurd question, it’s yes, that would be better than the alternative.
Unherd censors these comments. That is more of a problem. There is no platform to speak freely!
>“Those who run afoul of the Disc are heaped with opprobrium, denounced as dangerous or backward, their employment and reputation threatened,” he said.
I get the sentiment here, but if you want to defend free speech you have to accept the risk of opprobrium and reputational damage. Those reactions are free speech, too.
“Those reactions are free speech, too.”
Are you sure about that? Executives, HR managers etc are entitled to incorporate someone’s personal views into reckoning their professional worth?
The delusion that this is acceptable is a substantial proportion of the overwhelming attacks on freedom of speech that social media has helped create in recent years. Of course it’s not acceptable.
Yes, I am sure about that. Or rather, I mean to refer to only those things that are free speech. Thus I specifically picked “opprobrium and reputational damage”.
Your reputation cannot be unaffected by the things you choose to express. Free speech must also mean the freedom of others to vehemently disagree.
So you would say, for example, that hiring managers in public sector organisations are entitled to dismiss from consideration the job application of any person known to have voted Leave in 2016?
Are you sure about this?
No, I would not. That’s doesn’t fall under “opprobrium and reputational damage”, which I specifically referred to.
How could you have free speech while at the same time not allowing “opprobrium and reputational damage”?
I completely agree AI in it’s current form can be an enormous echo chamber that depends on the curation of its learning data. We have to hope for diverse curation and follow those that give us a wide enough range of views that we can learn something from them.
He’s right. And the basic design of AI-driven Large Language Models is inherently aligned with consensus-driven censorship: LLMs generate text based upon statistical sampling of words and phrases in any given context, so they are already preconfigured to be usable as tools of censorship.
There are already calls to censor AI systems so that for example, they do not recommend extra policing in areas of higher crime rates.
Because that would be racist.
These two ladies (see video in link) discuss ARC….ARC’s conference is where the speech took place, whether you agree with their conclusions fully or not, I would say definitely worth a listen if you have half an hour.
https://informedheart.substack.com/p/across-the-globe-sonia-and-i-discuss
If you have more than half an hour, say six months, try Alison McDowell…from the beginning and work forward.
None of the other comments so far discuss Palantir controversies and there are many.
Paul Marshall and UnHerd: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/28/loud-and-uncowed-how-unherd-owner-paul-marshall-became-britains-newest-media-mogul
I would not necessarily agree that UnHerd is part of the Legatum Empire…..in that writers have diverse opinions, but worth noting the connections.
https://informedheart.substack.com/p/who-or-what-is-behind-arc