By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) is employing artificial intelligence to generate a “delete list” of federal regulations, aiming to eliminate 50% of them by the first anniversary of the second inauguration. The “Doge AI Deregulation Decision Tool” will analyze approximately 200,000 regulations and select those deemed unnecessary, potentially removing 100,000 after staff feedback. Internal documents reveal the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have utilized the AI tool for deregulation decisions. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields confirmed all options are being explored to meet deregulation promises, while acknowledging that this is a work in progress.
Read the original article here
Doge reportedly using AI to create ‘delete list’ of federal regulations. The implications of this are, to put it mildly, unsettling. It appears that an AI tool is being deployed to compile a list of federal regulations slated for removal. The idea of using artificial intelligence to streamline and modernize the regulatory landscape is, on the surface, appealing. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.
This approach is reminiscent of a “move fast and break things” mentality, a philosophy that, while perhaps suitable for the tech world, carries significant risks when applied to areas that impact life, liberty, health, and safety. The danger lies in the potential for unintended consequences. Regulations, even seemingly outdated ones, often serve a purpose, even if that purpose isn’t immediately obvious. Removing them without thorough consideration could open the door to all sorts of problems.
The core issue here is not necessarily the use of AI itself, but the way it’s being employed. AI, at its current stage of development, is best used as a tool for people who already possess expertise in a given field. It can analyze data, identify patterns, and offer suggestions, but it cannot, and should not, make decisions on its own. The suggestion that an AI could make informed decisions about which regulations to eliminate is a scary thought.
The suggestion that the goal is to eliminate positions and personnel, with the plan to rehire them if needed, is troubling. It suggests a lack of understanding of the importance of experience and institutional knowledge. Removing regulations and then potentially re-implementing them later would be chaotic, creating instability and uncertainty for businesses and the public alike. It is also a signal of how little some people care about our country and the health and safety of its citizens.
The potential for corruption and abuse of power is also significant. If an AI is tasked with identifying regulations for removal, it could be manipulated to favor certain interests, possibly even removing regulations that protect the public from the actions of powerful entities. And let’s be honest, the possibility that some are in a position of authority purely on the basis of loyalty, rather than competence, is a terrifying prospect.
It’s important to note that there is a difference between the idea of using AI to review regulations and the actual execution of this task. A legitimate, responsible approach would involve human experts, with domain knowledge, carefully reviewing the AI’s recommendations and assessing the potential impact of any changes.
This all boils down to one core issue: the erosion of expertise and the prioritization of efficiency above all else. It seems as though AI is being used to automate tasks and make decisions that require human judgment, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of the complexities of the law and society.
One of the more concerning aspects is the potential for a lack of oversight. If an AI is making these recommendations, who is checking its work? Who is making sure that the process is fair, transparent, and in the public interest? And what about the potential for these AI tools to become part of a power grab?
The potential for mistakes, for misinterpretations, and for unintended consequences is very real. The long-term impacts on things like health, safety, and environmental protection could be significant. Regulations are complex, and changing them requires careful consideration and expertise.
It is worth noting that this initiative, if true, would need a great deal of investigation by the press. Are they actually massaging the actions, or trying to dignify them?
Ultimately, the use of AI to create a “delete list” of federal regulations raises some fundamental questions about who is making decisions, how those decisions are being made, and whose interests are being served. The move toward “AI-driven governance” is often presented as a way to improve efficiency and cut costs. But the cost of getting it wrong could be far greater than any savings. We should all be demanding transparency, accountability, and a healthy dose of skepticism.