A PowerPoint presentation made public by the Post claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) used the AI tool to make “decisions on 1,083 regulatory sections”, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau used it to write “100% of deregulations”.
The Post spoke to three HUD employees who told the newspaper AI had been “recently used to review hundreds, if not more than 1,000, lines of regulations”.
Oh, good. Everything was feeling a little too calm, so of course they’re doing this right fucking now.
Well, this reads … I dunno. Conspiracy-minded at best, I’ve read plenty of such and most was likely fake.
To make it clear, I don’t consider deregulation something bad, when done as part of a system where it makes sense.
Otherwise it’s like paying people for work - labor should be paid for, not paying is cheating, you need work done for you, all these are true, except when it’s a gypsy fortuneteller saying you have to pay lots and lots of money not previously agreed upon for lifting a curse, then you probably shouldn’t pay that person.
When deregulation is done only partially and without “releasing” any of the political power held by private parties, just removing obligations accompanying it - then something is wrong.
No, I could see how archived Washington Post articles written at the time of the events in 1989 and 1991, plus an entire documentary about their involvement made by the Carnegie Institute in 2012 reads conspiracy minded.
I’m sure their system of deregulation via automated vibe coded AI that by EO must reflect a “non-woke” bias will make a lot of sense.
I was kinda agreeing with you, just clarifying on one nuance