3 ms·

Court to DOGE: Asking ChatGPT 'Is This DEI?' Is Not Proper Legal Process

99 points by hn_acker 6mo ago

hn_acker 6mo ago
The original title is: > Court To DOGE Bros: Asking ChatGPT ‘Yo, Is This DEI?’ Is Not Proper Legal Process & Also A First Amendment Violation
tracker1 6mo ago
[flagged]
- mint5 6mo ago
  I too pine for the days when we could easily have fun by lighting the rivers on fire to pass the time.
  - tracker1 6mo ago
    Your extrapolation makes absolutely no sense. I didn't say no government or laws, or advocate for any such thing. Try reading slower.
    - McGlockenshire 6mo ago
      You should read the article and gain understanding of the thing that you think you're criticizing. Then you will understand the parent comment. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
    - mint5 6mo ago
      Yes my comment was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing a statement, but take a pause and consider what caused it. It shouldn’t be surprising that a call for shrinking government after the doge fiasco raises counter examples, especially in response to an article on doge. And since your statement was so broad and generalized, it doesn’t really lend itself to constructive debate. But yes this site strives for more quality discussion. It seems we both agree though, but have different views on where to set the scale. We agree on the fundamental yeah? Can we agree that while regulation and enforcement, aka big government, is annoying and costly, yet at the same time a good number of regulations are or were necessary due to being written in literal blood. We agree on that right? That neither of us want melamine poisoning the milk small kids drink nor do we want our kitchen counter tops to be priced in terms of lung chunks of workers. But also acknowledge that regulations hurt small businesses and need balance.
      - tracker1 5mo ago
        Personally, I don't think corporate liabilities should be nearly as limited as they are and that something like negligent homicide from a company could/should potentially include the death penalty for corporate officers. In the case of very large spread issues, corporate officers and board members should be at risk of losing personal wealth as well. That said, I'd rather not be using taxpayer funds for NGOs that mostly funnel money into political propaganda or circumcisions in another country. Just because I don't think the federal govt should be nearly as big as it is, doesn't mean I embrace or encourage outright evil. I was only making a statement in that I largely supported the idea of dramatically cutting back on a lot of federal speding, and in particular foreign spend on dubious causes.
- croes 6mo ago
  Too bad they left out the review part. Maybe because you have to know the subject to actually review it
  - tracker1 5mo ago
    I don't need to know the details of how circumcisions in Brazil are going to be done in order to know that I don't want US tax dollars paying for it. Even if it is a shell game to buy off local politicians or influence foreign elections. We're approaching $40 trillion USD in debt, with interest as the single largest growing section of spending. The debt based economy as a model needs to be displaced, imo, ideally by something more reasonable and still based on capitalism (not necessarily corporatism). It's impractical to keep funding things the way they are. I've worked in and around enough govt and banking projects in my life that you won't convince me that we need to spend, or tax people more.
saltcured 6mo ago
Don't worry, they'll add a skill that says, "pretend I asked this question like a lawyer, and you are a paralegal who does all my work for me."
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
josefritzishere 6mo ago
Sometimes the dumbness can be more offensive than the crime itself.
mnmnmn 6mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 6mo ago
  We've banned this account because near enough to every comment is unsubstantive fulmination.
kykat 6mo ago
I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.
- spwa4 6mo ago
  Courts are extremely reluctant to turn back a lot of government decisions. There'll be some minimal restitution and a promise to never do it again. And then the Trump administration will use Claude next time.
mothballed 6mo ago
DOGE made the mistake of not making a sham trial and court. There was a brutal deposition where they were asking a barely beyond teenager how he had the technical experience to determine if particular grants/projects were DEI, and it was clear he hadn't been properly informed of the magic phrases bureaucrats are to say to questions like these when confronted. Cops and other entrenched professionals always get the training to answer this properly by arguing they got the right training by the right bullshit artists with the right PhDs with the right expert witnesses to say "yuh, what he said." "consistent with my training and experience" yada yada, ask the expert witness who developed our process, who we have in our pocket.... If DOGE had any foresight, they would have done what the rest of government does (including the DEI people) and create some bullshit academic program that pumps out "credentialed" bullshit artists that explain their PhD in anti-DEI qualifies them and then absolutely flood anyone contesting it with a pile of paperwork mumbo-jumbo of so many reasons they never will have the time to disprove them all .
- croes 6mo ago
  DOGE made the mistake to put people without proper knowledge in positions that require knowledge. How is the COBOL port to Java going?
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    No, I don't think that was it. How many cops have been able to bullshit Ouija (drug) dogs as PC while just deferring to the "experts" to bullshit how they're trained and how a dog that barely works better than a coin flip is a legally valid process for establishing PC? As long as they have some document that shows they followed the process vetted by some expert witness that has had 5 years of practice on creating so much bullshit artistry you can never disprove it all without going bankrupt, then they usually get away with. There's endless armies of people (immigration 'judges' are a big one) that do totally fraudulent process but because it's dressed up in all the right deflective language and credentialism it gets a pass. DOGE was new enough they didn't brief their employees on all the magic mumbo jumbo phrases to say yet. Given a few more years and you'd have people doing the exact same damn thing except answering depositions with the right magic deflections that they'd get away with it. Given more time, they'd have their DEI legal equivalent of a drug dog.
expedition32 6mo ago
Every single time a bunch of people come into power and think they can "fix the system" and the system cuts off their balls...

99 points by hn_acker 6mo ago

The original title is: > Court To DOGE Bros: Asking ChatGPT ‘Yo, Is This DEI?’ Is Not Proper Legal Process & Also A First Amendment Violation

tracker1 6mo ago

[flagged]

mint5 6mo ago
I too pine for the days when we could easily have fun by lighting the rivers on fire to pass the time.
- tracker1 6mo ago
  Your extrapolation makes absolutely no sense. I didn't say no government or laws, or advocate for any such thing. Try reading slower.
  - McGlockenshire 6mo ago
    You should read the article and gain understanding of the thing that you think you're criticizing. Then you will understand the parent comment. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
  - mint5 6mo ago
    Yes my comment was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing a statement, but take a pause and consider what caused it. It shouldn’t be surprising that a call for shrinking government after the doge fiasco raises counter examples, especially in response to an article on doge. And since your statement was so broad and generalized, it doesn’t really lend itself to constructive debate. But yes this site strives for more quality discussion. It seems we both agree though, but have different views on where to set the scale. We agree on the fundamental yeah? Can we agree that while regulation and enforcement, aka big government, is annoying and costly, yet at the same time a good number of regulations are or were necessary due to being written in literal blood. We agree on that right? That neither of us want melamine poisoning the milk small kids drink nor do we want our kitchen counter tops to be priced in terms of lung chunks of workers. But also acknowledge that regulations hurt small businesses and need balance.
    - tracker1 5mo ago
      Personally, I don't think corporate liabilities should be nearly as limited as they are and that something like negligent homicide from a company could/should potentially include the death penalty for corporate officers. In the case of very large spread issues, corporate officers and board members should be at risk of losing personal wealth as well. That said, I'd rather not be using taxpayer funds for NGOs that mostly funnel money into political propaganda or circumcisions in another country. Just because I don't think the federal govt should be nearly as big as it is, doesn't mean I embrace or encourage outright evil. I was only making a statement in that I largely supported the idea of dramatically cutting back on a lot of federal speding, and in particular foreign spend on dubious causes.
croes 6mo ago
Too bad they left out the review part. Maybe because you have to know the subject to actually review it
- tracker1 5mo ago
  I don't need to know the details of how circumcisions in Brazil are going to be done in order to know that I don't want US tax dollars paying for it. Even if it is a shell game to buy off local politicians or influence foreign elections. We're approaching $40 trillion USD in debt, with interest as the single largest growing section of spending. The debt based economy as a model needs to be displaced, imo, ideally by something more reasonable and still based on capitalism (not necessarily corporatism). It's impractical to keep funding things the way they are. I've worked in and around enough govt and banking projects in my life that you won't convince me that we need to spend, or tax people more.

saltcured 6mo ago

Don't worry, they'll add a skill that says, "pretend I asked this question like a lawyer, and you are a paralegal who does all my work for me."

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

josefritzishere 6mo ago

Sometimes the dumbness can be more offensive than the crime itself.

mnmnmn 6mo ago

[flagged]

tomhow 6mo ago
We've banned this account because near enough to every comment is unsubstantive fulmination.

kykat 6mo ago

I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.

spwa4 6mo ago
Courts are extremely reluctant to turn back a lot of government decisions. There'll be some minimal restitution and a promise to never do it again. And then the Trump administration will use Claude next time.

mothballed 6mo ago

DOGE made the mistake of not making a sham trial and court. There was a brutal deposition where they were asking a barely beyond teenager how he had the technical experience to determine if particular grants/projects were DEI, and it was clear he hadn't been properly informed of the magic phrases bureaucrats are to say to questions like these when confronted. Cops and other entrenched professionals always get the training to answer this properly by arguing they got the right training by the right bullshit artists with the right PhDs with the right expert witnesses to say "yuh, what he said." "consistent with my training and experience" yada yada, ask the expert witness who developed our process, who we have in our pocket.... If DOGE had any foresight, they would have done what the rest of government does (including the DEI people) and create some bullshit academic program that pumps out "credentialed" bullshit artists that explain their PhD in anti-DEI qualifies them and then absolutely flood anyone contesting it with a pile of paperwork mumbo-jumbo of so many reasons they never will have the time to disprove them all .

croes 6mo ago
DOGE made the mistake to put people without proper knowledge in positions that require knowledge. How is the COBOL port to Java going?
- mothballed 6mo ago
  No, I don't think that was it. How many cops have been able to bullshit Ouija (drug) dogs as PC while just deferring to the "experts" to bullshit how they're trained and how a dog that barely works better than a coin flip is a legally valid process for establishing PC? As long as they have some document that shows they followed the process vetted by some expert witness that has had 5 years of practice on creating so much bullshit artistry you can never disprove it all without going bankrupt, then they usually get away with. There's endless armies of people (immigration 'judges' are a big one) that do totally fraudulent process but because it's dressed up in all the right deflective language and credentialism it gets a pass. DOGE was new enough they didn't brief their employees on all the magic mumbo jumbo phrases to say yet. Given a few more years and you'd have people doing the exact same damn thing except answering depositions with the right magic deflections that they'd get away with it. Given more time, they'd have their DEI legal equivalent of a drug dog.

expedition32 6mo ago

Every single time a bunch of people come into power and think they can "fix the system" and the system cuts off their balls...