4 ms·

> Trump administration officials have told some U.S. government employees that Elon Musk's DOGE team of technologists is using artificial intelligence to survei

by bko 2y ago

> Trump administration officials have told some U.S. government employees that Elon Musk's DOGE team of technologists is using artificial intelligence to surveil at least one federal agency’s communications for hostility to President Donald Trump and his agenda, said two people with knowledge of the matter. I think its entirely reasonable for an employer to monitor employee communications on company media channels. I've dealt with a few toxic employees in the past where their incessant complaining and passive sabotage of work is incredibly harmful to morale and work of others. I don't really see how using AI is controversial other than it's being done more efficiently, flagging just blatant violations. Seems preferable and more respectful of privacy that having an employee read all communications manually and applying judgement.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Trump isn't their employer and the whole narrative that they "report" to him is an executive order-based fiction. The departments are supposed to be independent, some wildly more than others, and the heads of the department control them and set the agenda.
- bko 2y ago
  I don't know, anytime I read anything like this it's a whack a mole. > Trump / Doge / Musk is snooping It's pretty normal to monitor communication channels > for anti Trump / Elon communication It's pretty normal to have informal speech codes at work, which include don't un-constructively criticize your employer or parent company. > using AI Okay, it just does what humans do except more efficiently > but the AI is not compliant to some regulation I don't know and I don't think you know either > but they don't "report" to him They're still part of the federal government. Again, I don't think its unreasonable and its certainly not productive At a certain point I realize there aren't any real objections other than [orange | rocket] man bad. There's a lot to criticize with this administration but criticizing absolutely everything, even when its entirely reasonable, doesn't help sway people's opinions. So when people read hysterical headlines about how the federal government is spying on federal employees by accessing their pay information, they just tune out.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    > but criticizing absolutely everything, even when its entirely reasonable Got it. But for a lot of us this is not entirely reasonable at all.
  - ellen364 2y ago
    I don't know where I stand on this, but not everyone thinks that 100% on-task, uncritical, 0 conflict communication is essential or even normal for work. It reminds me of an article that claimed Britain has become a more civil and less honest place in the last few decades. (The Economist, maybe?) Perhaps some workplaces are like that too. Whether it's a good thing or not, who knows. People clearly have their preference one way or the other. This specific case is tied to complicated American politics, but I guess small versions of the same debate are happening in workplaces all over the world. Though maybe, ironically, not in the most intensely policed workplaces.
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    The executive branch is really not supposed to have complete unrestrained control over the entire federal government. The point about AI isn't about efficiency, it's about accountability. This administration already has a huge accountability problem, and the AI is another layer of "Oh, that wasn't really me who did that thing I did." This isn't just cynicism, the current admin is incapable of taking responsibility for anything they've done wrong (and perfectly willing to take full responsibility for things other people have done right).
voidUpdate 2y ago
Has an LLM ever gotten something wrong in your experience? Now imagine you get fired because the magic autocomplete machine randomly decided that something you said had a bad vibe
- bko 2y ago
  I don't think an LLM has access to payroll or authority to fire anyone. It just flags and people review. Have you worked in a large organization? Have you ever had to fire anyone, or tried to get someone fired? It's not easy.
  - voidUpdate 2y ago
    Judging by how many people DOGE has gotten fired, it doesn't seem that hard
    - bko 2y ago
      As of April 1, 2025, approximately 60,000 federal employees have been forcibly terminated or laid off as part of the Trump administration's workforce reduction efforts. These terminations primarily targeted probationary employees—those hired, promoted, or transferred within the last year—who lack full civil service protections. There are about 3m employees so this is about 2%. This is pretty normal course of business for most organizations. Meta laid off 13% of workers in 2022-2023 and an additional 5% in 2025. Other tech companies did similar numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mass_layoffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mas...
      - oyashirochama 2y ago
        The issue is, probationary in Gov doesn't mean what it means in Corporate speak. They do actually have most of the same protections which he ignored illegally.
      - nxobject 2y ago
        Yes and no – nearly half federal government's actual workforce is contractors, and contracts have been cancelled en masse. Here is data from 2017 -- the percentage is nearly 40%. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/contractors-and-true-size-of-government https://www.pogo.org/analysis/contractors-and-true-size-of-g...
megaloblasto 2y ago
This comment bothers me a lot. It seems like you have a view that companies are at war with their pesky employees, and need to use whatever means to squash any bad apples. Companies should be a place where people earn a livelyhood and contribute to society. They should feel safe at work and able to freely communicate any suggestions or complaints they have.
- bko 2y ago
  I want to feel safe at work and feel like I'm contributing to the mission of the company. Then log off and live my life. I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction. I don't want people badmouthing their job or work or company. All of these behaviors are toxic and I would guess 80% of people are like me. That's what "feeling safe at work" means to me. Just mission focused. Happy hour is a different story, but at least with that you can choose to go and who to chat with.
  - megaloblasto 2y ago
    Some things really are bad, and "badmouthing" and pointing that out can be a productive thing. Thinking that anything that is against the "mission of the company" is toxic is a stance that I do not share. It feels like your opinion is "boss is always right, just do what they say" (I apologize if I'm misreading that). The truth is that bosses are often wrong and need to be corrected.
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    > I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction This would be a ridiculous expectation if you were working for the federal government. Politics affect your work to an extreme level there. Not discussing politics at all is not discussing your job. > I don't want people badmouthing their job or work or company. All of these behaviors are toxic and I would guess 80% of people are like me. If your company was involved in something really bad, you'd rather just not know? If you worked for Theranos, Nikola, or Enron, you'd rather be able to continue on with your nose down than know what's going on? I want to know the truth about my company. I don't want to be complicit in crimes or things that I consider unconscionable, and I don't consider willing ignorance a good excuse for partaking in unethical or illegal activity.
llm_nerd 2y ago
In every situation like this, always contemplate how the reception would be if the other side did it. Like, we know the "but her emails" thing was the greatest example of bloviated hypocrisy in human history. This government has absolutely obliterated information security norms, and suddenly all of those fake concerns dissolved. Similarly there was a week-long outrage about Biden looking at his watch during a fallen servicemember repatriation. Trump didn't even show up to four fallen soldiers -- didn't even know about them almost a day later, presumably because to him they're suckers and losers -- and went golfing instead. Not a peep. So if the Biden admin deployed an AI sentiment analysis that flagged and then fired any civil servant anywhere in the masses of government who went against any of their decrees, would you say "well that's their employer and they're toxic"? Really?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
chuckadams 2y ago
I'd be curious to know what the prompt is. I'm sure it's just about flagging "blatant violations".
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> flagging just blatant violations. What is your basis for claiming this? In particular, with the current state of the art, an AI could hallucinate a violation.
- bko 2y ago
  Do you think AI is hooked up to the their entire infra where they can act as an agent, file disciplinary complaints, put people on performance plans, etc? Come on
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    Given the spectacular, mind-blowing incompetence of almost everything they've done so far, I 100% absolutely believe that they would automatically send out dismissals based upon a sentiment analysis flag.
    - bko 2y ago
      So they're incompetent but can integrate an LLM to their entire human resources management, payroll, and administration system in a few months? Makes sense.
      - llm_nerd 2y ago
        Yes, the people who have repeatedly fired vast numbers of critical people[1] and then begged for them to come back are outrageously incompetent. The people who keep posting laughably wrong values on their "savings", and who are cancelling contracts they actually can't, contracts that are critical, or contracts that ended years ago are spectacularly incompetent. Hamfisting some AI bullshit to try to gangbang the government with Elon's own little AI creation isn't some massive undertaking, and I assume you must be new to this industry or something to think it is. [1] Current estimates of DOGE firings are in the range of 280,000 employees, not the 60k the other guy keeps claiming. And they've fired critical, hugely valuable employees repeatedly (nuclear safety, bird flu remediation, etc), seemingly having no idea what they do or how they do it. They just manufacture a BS cause, including claiming people who haven't even started are being fired for performance reasons, and automate mass firings.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> I think its entirely reasonable for an employer to monitor employee communications on company media channels. Okay but we're talking about a government with protections around speech and privacy. What does this have to do with "company media channels"?

by bko 2y ago

candiddevmike 2y ago

Trump isn't their employer and the whole narrative that they "report" to him is an executive order-based fiction. The departments are supposed to be independent, some wildly more than others, and the heads of the department control them and set the agenda.

bko 2y ago
I don't know, anytime I read anything like this it's a whack a mole. > Trump / Doge / Musk is snooping It's pretty normal to monitor communication channels > for anti Trump / Elon communication It's pretty normal to have informal speech codes at work, which include don't un-constructively criticize your employer or parent company. > using AI Okay, it just does what humans do except more efficiently > but the AI is not compliant to some regulation I don't know and I don't think you know either > but they don't "report" to him They're still part of the federal government. Again, I don't think its unreasonable and its certainly not productive At a certain point I realize there aren't any real objections other than [orange | rocket] man bad. There's a lot to criticize with this administration but criticizing absolutely everything, even when its entirely reasonable, doesn't help sway people's opinions. So when people read hysterical headlines about how the federal government is spying on federal employees by accessing their pay information, they just tune out.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  > but criticizing absolutely everything, even when its entirely reasonable Got it. But for a lot of us this is not entirely reasonable at all.
- ellen364 2y ago
  I don't know where I stand on this, but not everyone thinks that 100% on-task, uncritical, 0 conflict communication is essential or even normal for work. It reminds me of an article that claimed Britain has become a more civil and less honest place in the last few decades. (The Economist, maybe?) Perhaps some workplaces are like that too. Whether it's a good thing or not, who knows. People clearly have their preference one way or the other. This specific case is tied to complicated American politics, but I guess small versions of the same debate are happening in workplaces all over the world. Though maybe, ironically, not in the most intensely policed workplaces.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  The executive branch is really not supposed to have complete unrestrained control over the entire federal government. The point about AI isn't about efficiency, it's about accountability. This administration already has a huge accountability problem, and the AI is another layer of "Oh, that wasn't really me who did that thing I did." This isn't just cynicism, the current admin is incapable of taking responsibility for anything they've done wrong (and perfectly willing to take full responsibility for things other people have done right).

voidUpdate 2y ago

Has an LLM ever gotten something wrong in your experience? Now imagine you get fired because the magic autocomplete machine randomly decided that something you said had a bad vibe

bko 2y ago
I don't think an LLM has access to payroll or authority to fire anyone. It just flags and people review. Have you worked in a large organization? Have you ever had to fire anyone, or tried to get someone fired? It's not easy.
- voidUpdate 2y ago
  Judging by how many people DOGE has gotten fired, it doesn't seem that hard
  - bko 2y ago
    As of April 1, 2025, approximately 60,000 federal employees have been forcibly terminated or laid off as part of the Trump administration's workforce reduction efforts. These terminations primarily targeted probationary employees—those hired, promoted, or transferred within the last year—who lack full civil service protections. There are about 3m employees so this is about 2%. This is pretty normal course of business for most organizations. Meta laid off 13% of workers in 2022-2023 and an additional 5% in 2025. Other tech companies did similar numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mass_layoffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mas...
    - oyashirochama 2y ago
      The issue is, probationary in Gov doesn't mean what it means in Corporate speak. They do actually have most of the same protections which he ignored illegally.
    - nxobject 2y ago
      Yes and no – nearly half federal government's actual workforce is contractors, and contracts have been cancelled en masse. Here is data from 2017 -- the percentage is nearly 40%. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/contractors-and-true-size-of-government https://www.pogo.org/analysis/contractors-and-true-size-of-g...

megaloblasto 2y ago

This comment bothers me a lot. It seems like you have a view that companies are at war with their pesky employees, and need to use whatever means to squash any bad apples. Companies should be a place where people earn a livelyhood and contribute to society. They should feel safe at work and able to freely communicate any suggestions or complaints they have.

bko 2y ago
I want to feel safe at work and feel like I'm contributing to the mission of the company. Then log off and live my life. I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction. I don't want people badmouthing their job or work or company. All of these behaviors are toxic and I would guess 80% of people are like me. That's what "feeling safe at work" means to me. Just mission focused. Happy hour is a different story, but at least with that you can choose to go and who to chat with.
- megaloblasto 2y ago
  Some things really are bad, and "badmouthing" and pointing that out can be a productive thing. Thinking that anything that is against the "mission of the company" is toxic is a stance that I do not share. It feels like your opinion is "boss is always right, just do what they say" (I apologize if I'm misreading that). The truth is that bosses are often wrong and need to be corrected.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  > I don't want politics discussed at work, it's annoying and a distraction This would be a ridiculous expectation if you were working for the federal government. Politics affect your work to an extreme level there. Not discussing politics at all is not discussing your job. > I don't want people badmouthing their job or work or company. All of these behaviors are toxic and I would guess 80% of people are like me. If your company was involved in something really bad, you'd rather just not know? If you worked for Theranos, Nikola, or Enron, you'd rather be able to continue on with your nose down than know what's going on? I want to know the truth about my company. I don't want to be complicit in crimes or things that I consider unconscionable, and I don't consider willing ignorance a good excuse for partaking in unethical or illegal activity.

llm_nerd 2y ago

In every situation like this, always contemplate how the reception would be if the other side did it. Like, we know the "but her emails" thing was the greatest example of bloviated hypocrisy in human history. This government has absolutely obliterated information security norms, and suddenly all of those fake concerns dissolved. Similarly there was a week-long outrage about Biden looking at his watch during a fallen servicemember repatriation. Trump didn't even show up to four fallen soldiers -- didn't even know about them almost a day later, presumably because to him they're suckers and losers -- and went golfing instead. Not a peep. So if the Biden admin deployed an AI sentiment analysis that flagged and then fired any civil servant anywhere in the masses of government who went against any of their decrees, would you say "well that's their employer and they're toxic"? Really?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

chuckadams 2y ago

I'd be curious to know what the prompt is. I'm sure it's just about flagging "blatant violations".

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

> flagging just blatant violations. What is your basis for claiming this? In particular, with the current state of the art, an AI could hallucinate a violation.

bko 2y ago
Do you think AI is hooked up to the their entire infra where they can act as an agent, file disciplinary complaints, put people on performance plans, etc? Come on
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  Given the spectacular, mind-blowing incompetence of almost everything they've done so far, I 100% absolutely believe that they would automatically send out dismissals based upon a sentiment analysis flag.
  - bko 2y ago
    So they're incompetent but can integrate an LLM to their entire human resources management, payroll, and administration system in a few months? Makes sense.
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      Yes, the people who have repeatedly fired vast numbers of critical people[1] and then begged for them to come back are outrageously incompetent. The people who keep posting laughably wrong values on their "savings", and who are cancelling contracts they actually can't, contracts that are critical, or contracts that ended years ago are spectacularly incompetent. Hamfisting some AI bullshit to try to gangbang the government with Elon's own little AI creation isn't some massive undertaking, and I assume you must be new to this industry or something to think it is. [1] Current estimates of DOGE firings are in the range of 280,000 employees, not the 60k the other guy keeps claiming. And they've fired critical, hugely valuable employees repeatedly (nuclear safety, bird flu remediation, etc), seemingly having no idea what they do or how they do it. They just manufacture a BS cause, including claiming people who haven't even started are being fired for performance reasons, and automate mass firings.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

> I think its entirely reasonable for an employer to monitor employee communications on company media channels. Okay but we're talking about a government with protections around speech and privacy. What does this have to do with "company media channels"?