this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
722 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

64937 readers
5256 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

its icetown all over again!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago

Does that make Trump literally Chris Traeger?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

The overall goal is to cut the agency’s budget by fifty percent. Shedd suggested using AI to analyze contracts for redundancies, root out fraud, and facilitate a reduction in the federal workforce by automating much of their work.

I am bullish on AI in the long run.

I am skeptical that given the state of affairs in 2025, you can reasonably automate half of the federal government, via AI or any other means.

I also don't think that the way to do this is to lay off half of the federal workforce and then, after the fact, see what can be automated. If you look at the private sector automating things, it tends to hedge its bets. Take self-service point-of-sale kiosks. We didn't just see companies simply lay off all cashiers. Instead, we saw them brought in as an option, then had the company look at what worked and what didn't work -- and some of those were really bad at first -- and then increase the rate of deployment once it had confidence in the solution and a handle on the issues that came with them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You generally won't understand another person (and adversary especially) if you don't see how their actions perfectly make sense for them, and without conspiracies.

So - there is one matching variant, that Musk sincerely hates bureaucratic kinds of power, but not proprietary kinds of power. Replacing a bureaucrat with (some imagined good) AI in another assumption would be replacing a mediocre human with inherent lust for power with an unreliable automaton, but without lust for power. The good part here is that humans are unreliable too and working bureaucracies compensate for that.

The bad part is that for every failure a person should be responsible proportionally to their input. I'm not sure they'll do that, or I'm sure they won't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That would make sense if corporate bureaucracy was not bureaucracy. But it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

Yes, but corporate bureaucracy is someone's property, so ultimately there is a responsible person, always.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›