IT 거장 피터 틸과 데이터 브로커 오렌 호프만이 공동 설립한 프라이빗 네트워크 '다이얼로그(Dialog)'가 회원과 참석자들의 부, 명성, 인간관계를 추적하고 AI 알고리즘을 활용해 비밀리에 A, B, C 등급을 매기는 것으로 밝혀졌습니다. 이는 단순한 소모임을 넘어, 엘리트 인맥을 데이터화하고 통제하여 초대 여부와 좌석 배치까지 좌우하는 철저한 차별화 시스템을 구축했음을 보여줍니다.
번역된 본문
피터 틸(Peter Thiel)이 공동 설립한 프라이빗 네트워크인 다이얼로그(Dialog)는 행사 참석자들을 숨겨진 기준으로 평가합니다. 부와 명성에 따라 회원들을 순위를 매기고, 그들의 인간관계를 추적하며, 알고리즘을 활용해 누구와 만나야 할지, 누구와 앉아야 할지, 그리고 누가 더 이상 속해야 할 자격이 없는지 결정하는 것으로 <와이어드(WIRED)>가 취재를 통해 확인했습니다.
이러한 기록은 <와이어드>가 비밀 정보원으로부터 입수한 대규모 내부 데이터의 일부로, 이번 여름 연례 리트릿(오프라인 은뇌 모임) 참석을 예정한 약 200명의 저명 인사들의 개인정보가 포함되어 있습니다. 이 데이터에는 집 주소, 개인 전화번호 및 이메일 계정, 생년월일, 사진, 비상 연락처는 물론, 음식 알레르기와 일부 회원이 자발적으로 제공한 정치적 성향까지 포함되어 있습니다. 이 기록들은 다이얼로그와 관련된 인물들의 명단과는 구별됩니다. 해당 명단은 조직의 웹사이트에 노출되어 있었으며 이번 주 초부터 온라인에 유포되었는데, 메릴랜드 주지사 웨스 무어(Wes Moore) 같은 비회원이나 과거 연설자, 그리고 수년 전에 다이얼로그의 행사에 참석했던 외부 손님들까지 느슨하게 포함된 디렉토리 형태였습니다.
2006년 틸과 데이터 브로커 오렌 호프만(Auren Hoffman)이 설립한 다이얼로그는 정치인, 투자자, 기업가, 군 지도자, 경영진, 학자 및 언론인을 초청장 수수자만을 위한 기록이 남지 않는(오프 더 레코드) 리트릿 모임으로 초청하는 프라이빗 클럽입니다. 과거 참가자가 공유한 다이얼로그 문서에 따르면, 이 그룹은 "1,000명 이상의 유료 회원"을 보유하고 있으며 2,500명 이상이 연례 리트릿에 참석한 것으로 나타났습니다. "초대를 통해서만 가입할 수 있는 커뮤니티"로 자신을 규정하는 이 문서는 멤버십과 리트릿이라는 두 가지 핵심 제품을 구분합니다. 전자(멤버십)는 회원들을 '다이얼로거(dialogers)'라고 부르며, "전 세계 회원들의 자택 및 프라이빗 공간에서 개최되는 프라이빗 디너", "회원 주도의 글로벌 트레킹", 컨시어지 서비스, 비공개 그룹 채팅 등에 접근할 수 있게 해줍니다. 반면 리트릿은 반드시 회원이 아닌 200명 이상의 사람들을 소집해 3~4일 동안 진행되는 미팅입니다. 예를 들어, 지난 8월에는 회원, 연설자 및 게스트들이 아일랜드 더블린 외곽에 모여 현직 및 전직 입법자, 외교관, 국가 안보 관료들의 주도로 인공지능, 지정학, 현대 전쟁(NATO의 미래와 전장 기술부터 이란 전쟁까지)에 대한 2일간의 토론을 가질 예정이었습니다. (참고: <와이어드>의 전 편집장이자 현재 <디 애틀랜틱(The Atlantic)>의 CEO인 닉 톰프슨(Nick Thompson)이 공개된 명단과 미공개 기록 양쪽에 모두 포함되어 있습니다. 그는 자신이 다이얼로그의 회원인지 여부에 대한 말을 거부했습니다.)
다이얼로그는 사람들에게 가입 전부터 등급을 부여합니다. <와이어드>가 검토한 192개의 인물 프로필(dossier) 중 130개는 회원으로 태그가 지정되어 있습니다. 나머지는 프로필 파일에 "처음 온 다이얼로거" 또는 "우호적(Warm)"이라는 표시를 가진 잠재 고객들입니다. 회원이든 잠재 초대자든 모든 사람에게는 A, B 또는 C 등급이 부여됩니다. "C" 등급은 가장 유명하고 영향력 있는 인물을 위해 예약된 것으로 보이며, 7명 중 1명 꼴로만 이 등급을 받았습니다. 대다수의 사람들(192명 중 141명)은 "B" 등급을 받았습니다. 최하위 등급인 "A"는 주로 평가자들이 덜 주목한다고 판단하는 기존의 나이 많은 회원들에게 주로 부여되는 것으로 보입니다.
기록에 따르면 다이얼로그 리트릿에 한 번도 참석한 적 없는 배우 조시 브롤린(Josh Brolin)은 주로 그의 명성을 바탕으로 VIP로 분류되었습니다. 한 메모에는 "어벤져스 시리즈에서 타노스 역을 맡았고 27억 9천만 달러 이상의 수익을 올인 어벤져스: 엔드게임과 같은 흥행작에 출연한 것이 그의 저명성에 기여한다"고 적혀 있으며, 직원들은 그의 인스타그램 팔로워가 340만 명이 넘는다는 점을 추가로 인용했습니다. 반면, 경제학자 타일러 코웬(Tyler Cowen)은 그룹의 AI 도구가 그를 "해당 분야에서 널리 인정받고 있다"고 평가했음에도 "일반인에게 널리 알려진 조직의 리더"는 아니라는 이유로 처음에는 VIP인 "C" 등급을 거절당했습니다. (이 AI 도구는 그룹 명단에 포함된 최소 26명의 프로필을 작성하는 데 사용되었으나, 다이얼로그 직원이 이 AI 도구의 평가를 기각하고 수정했습니다.) 브롤린은 <와이어드>의 코멘트 요청에 응답하지 않았습니다.
Comment Loader Save Story Save this story Comment Loader Save Story Save this story Dialog, the private network cofounded by Peter Thiel , grades its event attendees on a hidden scale, ranking them by wealth and fame, tracking their relationships, and using algorithms to help decide who they should meet, who they should sit with, and who no longer belongs, WIRED has learned. The records are part of a trove of internal data received by WIRED from a confidential source, containing the personal information of nearly 200 prominent people scheduled to attend the group's annual retreat this summer. The data includes home addresses, private phone numbers and email accounts, dates of birth, photos, and emergency contacts, as well as food allergies and the political leanings volunteered by some members. The records are distinct from a list of people affiliated with Dialog that was left exposed on the organization’s website and has been circulating online since earlier this week—a looser directory that appears to include nonmembers, such as Maryland governor Wes Moore, a former event speaker, and other outside guests who passed through Dialog’s orbit, in some cases years ago. Founded in 2006 by Thiel and data broker Auren Hoffman, Dialog is a private club that convenes politicians, investors, entrepreneurs, military leaders, executives, academics, and journalists for invitation-only, off-the-record retreats. According to a Dialog document shared by a past participant, it has “over 1,000 paying members,” and more than 2,500 people have attended its annual retreats. The document, which describes Dialog as an “invite-only community,” distinguishes between two products: membership and retreats. The former allows members—the group calls them “dialogers”—to access private dinners “hosted in members’ homes and private spaces around the world,” as well as “member-led global treks,” concierge services, a private group chat, and more. Retreats convene groups of 200 or more people—who are not necessarily members—for three- to four-day meetings. This August, for example, members, speakers, and guests are scheduled to gather outside Dublin, Ireland, for two days of discussions on artificial intelligence, geopolitics, and modern warfare—from NATO’s future and battlefield tech to the war in Iran—led by current and former lawmakers, diplomats, and national security officials. (Disclosure: A former editor in chief of WIRED, Nick Thompson—currently the CEO of The Atlantic—is among those in both the public list and unreleased records. He declined to say whether he is a Dialog member.) Dialog assigns people grades before they join. Of the 192 dossiers examined by WIRED, 130 are tagged as members. The rest are prospects with files bearing markings like “First Time Dialoger” or “Warm.” Everyone—members and prospective invitees alike—is assigned a grade of A, B, or C. The “C” grade appears reserved for the most famous and influential; only one in seven received it. Most people—141 of 192—received a “B.” The final tier, “A,” appears primarily assigned to older, established members whom the graders consider less notable. Actor Josh Brolin—who, according to the records, has never attended a Dialog retreat—is categorized as a VIP largely based on the strength of his fame: ”His portrayal of Thanos in the Avengers series and his involvement in high-grossing films like Avengers: Endgame, which grossed over $2.79 billion, contribute to his prominence,” reads one note, with staff further citing his Instagram following of over 3.4 million. The economist Tyler Cowen, by contrast, was initially denied a VIP “C” rating after the group’s AI tool described him as “widely recognized within his field” but not a leader of “an organization that is a household name to the average person.” (Dialog staff overruled the AI tool, which was used to assemble dossiers on at least 26 people included on the group’s list.) Brolin did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. One of his representatives told The Hollywood Reporter that he wants “to know what the fuck he got himself into.” Cowen did not respond to a request for comment. Leaked staff notes attached to around 50 dossiers provide additional insight into what the group’s scores and grades measure. Wealth is one of the most common justifications found in the data, with one investor summed up by the money he oversees—$30 billion in assets under management—while another is marked down with a two-word verdict: “Small AUM.” Fame is a close second. In one note, a staffer assigned a member a grade “so she doesn't get seated with grade Cs” indicating that they wanted to avoid this member sitting with VIP attendees. Dialog’s algorithm consistently fixates on whether the “average person” would recognize someone. It repeatedly weighs whether people are “widely recognized” or sufficiently “prominent” and, in a handful of cases, measures them against “a Fortune 500 company or a top celebrity.” For example, Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute , was given a “B” rating because, it said, “the Manhattan Institute may not be as widely recognized by the average person as some larger organizations.” Salam did not respond to a request for comment. Dialog staff revisit and revise grades after every retreat—an internal process the records call a “post-retreat code review.” Alongside a letter grade, most people also carry a separate "value-add" score of 1 to 4, averaged from ratings by several staff. Members can be disinvited from events with explanations ranging from "Value Add Too Low" to "Poor Culture Fit" to "Grade Fell Too Low." A separate "moderation tier" tracks who is most trusted to moderate discussions, run Dialog’s workshops, or hold “Soapbox” sessions. The grades are used in part to determine what attendees are charged to attend Dialog events, which can extend into the tens of thousands of dollars. Bottom-grade attendees are placed on the full-price tier roughly 70 percent of the time, compared with about a quarter of those considered VIPs. Staff set prices by hand, one balking at raising a best-selling author’s fee “just because her boyfriend has $$.” A quantum-computing startup founder was flagged to be cut after one gathering: “Doesn't have significant following. [Value add] not high enough to keep.” The records also define the makeup of the group itself. Women account for roughly a third of those graded, but hold only 18 percent of top marks. The leak shows that Dialog also tracks invitees’ apparent political leanings. Members are urged to disclose their own, but staff make separate internal assessments, and the two do not always match. Eleven members were assigned labels despite disclosing nothing, and the self-descriptions of 15 others were overridden. The head of one of the world’s largest conservation groups described himself as left-leaning; Dialog’s staff placed him on the right. In the data for August’s event, 165 people disclosed their politics: More than half identified with the left. Even so, those on the right were more than twice as likely to carry a “C.” The leak also points to a built-in matchmaking system that pairs members for both networking and dating. (Roughly 10 percent of respondents opted into a singles pool.) More than three-quarters already have a list of algorithm-suggested matches, which staff appear to refine by hand. One note pairs two members because “you're both in New York and work in government.” Each introduction comes with a photo and a short bio shown to the other person. Dialog also maintains a list of people who should never be paired. The database flags “do-not-pair” combinations for a variety of reasons. Some are spouses, others already professional associates. A former ambassador is flagged against being matched with the head of his family’s organization. Others carry no reason at all: A prominent tech founder and an author are simply flagged against each other. The largest group,