Governments are no longer Big Tech’s worst nightmare

At the Nova2026 event, the M5S took a stance on artificial intelligence, going so far as to call for a ‘state-run’ version. Point 14 of the programme states: ‘State-run artificial intelligence, so that our public institutions are not influenced by the excessive power of Big Tech’. The expression conflates two distinct issues: state intervention in the funding, creation, management and supervision of AI models, and, on the other hand, technological sovereignty. The latter involves keeping data under Italian governance, ensuring the security and verifiability of innovation processes; all of this could, in theory, also be guaranteed by private Italian or European companies, not necessarily by the state.

This suggestion from the M5S appears to be influenced by the ongoing debate in the US regarding the safety of AI models and potential existential risks, a debate which has also brought with it the issue of the ‘nationalisation’ of the sector’s leading corporations. Dario Amodei of Anthropic, in his essay "We Must Pace the Frontier", refers to state intervention on numerous occasions: to establish a regulatory framework capable of curbing destructive tendencies and slowing down an ever-accelerating race; to ensure global coordination in order to stabilise the competition between nations and prevent it from turning into a technological cold war; and to develop internal evaluation and scrutiny mechanisms within cutting-edge laboratories. Sam Altman of OpenAI is also in favour of establishing a federal regulatory framework to oversee the most powerful players in the technology sector and of greater state involvement. Neither of them mentions concepts such as ‘nationalisation’, but the overall tone seems light years away from that Silicon Valley which historically seemed to view the government as the devil incarnate. Or so it seemed.

Because, to use poker jargon, it is Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp who is calling the bluff: interviewed on the CNBC programme ‘Squawk on the Street’, Karp argued that companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI have suddenly started talking about government intervention to shift their legal liabilities – for example, regarding copyright infringement – and to secure financial stability now that open-weight models are putting a strain on their finances. “Many of our clients,” says Karp, “will end up suing these companies unless a process of nationalisation takes place.” Recently emerged court documents relating to the case between OpenAI and The New York Times refer to the “greatest theft of intellectual property” ever seen. At the same time, OpenAI has postponed its IPO – a sign that the financial outlook is no longer quite so rosy.

The debate, however, setting aside any self-serving aspects, deserves to be clarified, given that it is beginning to spill over into Europe and Italy as well; see the position of the M5S or Beppe Severgnini’s article in the Corriere della Sera, ‘Nationalising AI: it can be done, indeed it must be done’. In his book The Technological Republic, Karp writes: “A partnership between the state and the software industry will be necessary for the United States and its allies in Europe and the rest of the world to maintain their dominance.” Karp speaks of collaboration and cooperation, not of nationalisation. Recalling the origins of Silicon Valley – which was funded by the Department of Defence and, since Palantir’s foundation, has also operated in sectors exclusively within the state’s remit, such as security and defence – Karp’s vision is to reinvigorate the state through technology and, symmetrically, to make the corporate sphere of the tech industry less consumerist. Whether this involves nationalisation or complete political control through public ownership – even in the face of government share acquisitions, as in the case of Intel – becomes clear when one examines the operational side of the union between the state sector and the tech industry. In June 2026, Pete Hegseth appointed several Silicon Valley figures to the Pentagon’s Defence Board, ranging from Marc Andreessen to Blake Masters, Peter Thiel’s protégé. Another case, extensively analysed by Palantir’s CTO Shyam Sankar in his book Mobilize, is the Maven project, the flagship of what might be termed ‘state military AI’: State intervention took the form of funding and peripheral oversight, leaving large companies – including Anthropic itself, which in 2024 integrated Claude into the infrastructure created by Palantir – free to develop the project. So much so that the project’s military lead, Colonel Drew Cukor, has become well known for cutting through red tape and excessive controls. This is the exact opposite of the ‘state AI’ called for by the M5S or by certain commentators; rather, it is somewhat reminiscent of the rather uninspiring model of the ‘Netflix of Italian culture’.