On October 30, 2025, news circulated exclusively among Business Insider subscribers highlighting an interview that ignited considerable philosophical and technological debate. In this feature, Shyam Sankar—Palantir Technologies’ Chief Technology Officer—offered an in-depth critique of what he described as “AI doomerism,” a contemporary worldview that anticipates artificial intelligence leading humanity toward catastrophic outcomes. Sankar’s reflections, delivered during a conversation with *New York Times* columnist Ross Douthat, questioned the cultural and spiritual underpinnings of such pessimistic visions.
Sankar explained that he is profoundly skeptical of apocalyptic forecasts that portray AI as a threat poised to undermine civilization or enslave humankind. He characterized these forecasts as primarily psychological and existential rather than scientific in origin. According to him, individuals who adhere to religious faiths tend to resist these extreme scenarios, displaying a more tempered outlook on technological advancement. Conversely, those within the predominantly secular enclaves of Silicon Valley, he suggested, often substitute their absence of spiritual conviction with an almost devotional belief in artificial general intelligence. This tendency, Sankar asserted, fills what he called a “God-shaped hole in their hearts”—a metaphor for the search for transcendence in a society governed by rationalism and digital progress rather than by faith or metaphysics.
Elaborating further, he argued that many technologists who proclaim that AI could one day dominate or annihilate humanity are, consciously or not, projecting spiritual longings onto their creations. Instead of viewing AI as a sophisticated yet manageable tool, these thinkers elevate it to the status of a quasi-divine or demonic force. Sankar contrasted this attitude with that of religious individuals, who often regard the boundaries between human and machine as ultimately limited and governed by moral or divine order. For him, “doomerism” reflects not an empirical reading of technological trends, but a psychological narrative—an effort by some to re-enchant a disenchanted world through technological apocalypse myths.
When Douthat questioned whether Palantir, whose software often supports military and defense applications, intends to develop systems capable of replacing soldiers’ or commanders’ judgment, Sankar dismissed this possibility. He emphasized that AI integration in such contexts represents a shift in degree rather than in kind—a matter of efficiency and augmentation rather than full substitution. Invoking cultural touchstones like the *Terminator* franchise, he rejected dystopian imagery depicting sentient machines waging war against humans, insisting that reality does not align with these cinematic fantasies. Instead, he envisioned AI as a pragmatic enhancement to human capability, a partner rather than a predator.
Moreover, Sankar accused some proponents of AI doomerism of employing fear-based narratives as a strategic business instrument. He described this approach as a “fundraising shtick,” wherein startups and established technology firms alike amplify the perceived power and danger of their own creations to attract investment. By warning that their products might precipitate economic upheaval or widespread unemployment, these companies, Sankar argued, cultivate both fascination and dependency. In essence, fear becomes a marketing strategy—suggesting that one must invest in or align with their vision of AI to avoid obsolescence or poverty.
Sankar’s final remarks underscored a recurring theme in his thought: the disconnection between theory and real-world application. He noted that many experts who fuel AI panic do so from behind screens in Silicon Valley offices, rarely engaging with the environments where these technologies are actually deployed. In contrast, frontline interactions, he said, paint a different picture—one of empowerment and augmentation rather than displacement. Employees using Palantir’s tools, for instance, often find their productivity and decision-making capacity enhanced, not eroded. For them, AI acts as a force multiplier, expanding human potential rather than eclipsing it.
Through this nuanced commentary, Sankar invited his audience to move beyond the binary of utopian and dystopian thinking that so often dominates discussions about artificial intelligence. He implied that society’s greatest challenge is not the risk of mechanical rebellion, but the metaphysical anxiety of confronting our own created powers in the absence of deeper moral or spiritual frameworks. His words thus transform the AI debate into a mirror—reflecting not just our technological ambitions, but our collective struggle to define meaning in an increasingly algorithmic age.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-shyam-sankar-skeptical-ai-jobs-2025-10
