> Sweet’s primary role appears to be leading an effort to leverage artificial intelligence to review HUD’s regulations, compare them to the laws on which they are based, and identify areas where rules can be relaxed or removed altogether. [...] [He] has produced an Excel spreadsheet with around a thousand rows containing areas of policy where the AI tool has flagged that HUD may have “overreached” and suggesting replacement language.
> Staffers from PIH are, specifically, asked to review the AI’s recommendations and justify their objections to those they don’t agree with. “It all sounds crazy—having AI recommend revisions to regulations,” one HUD source says. “But I appreciated how much they’re using real people to confirm and make changes.”
> Once the PIH team completes the review, their recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for approval.
HHS gutted its Office of the General Counsel in early March, closing most of its offices, and consolidated power in new positions created for already appointed loyalists. I doubt housing will avoid the same face.
I agree that getting 3 guys to the moon seems much harder than running a nation into the ground. That said, isn't that a reason that you'd want younger people in DOGE than in the Apollo program?
All you have to do to run a nation into the ground is blow everything up. It's not a terribly complicated task. The DOGE employees being younger wouldn't seem, to me, to meaningfully restrict their ability to screw up everything. Point of fact is, if you want to run a nation into the ground, being younger could actually be viewed as a qualification. I wouldn't think you'd want people who understand too well what they're doing.
Something, something, Chesterton's Fence.
frereubu•9mo ago