Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has increasingly relied on artificial intelligence (AI) in its operations, aligning with its ambition to run the U.S. government like a startup. Unfortunately, this approach often results in chaotic implementations that prioritize speed over thoughtful deliberation. Although AI has genuine applications and can enhance operational efficiency, DOGE’s use lacks nuance and awareness of potential pitfalls.
Recent developments have shed light on how extensively DOGE employs AI and raised concerns about its implications. For instance, a college undergraduate at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been assigned the task of leveraging AI to analyze HUD regulations. This initiative aims to identify regulations that exceed strict interpretations of the law. While this is a task suitable for AI due to its ability to process large volumes of information rapidly, it carries significant risks. AI’s tendency to fabricate references, combined with the subjective nature of legal interpretation, could lead to skewed outcomes and further manipulate regulatory frameworks.
Conversely, DOGE’s objectives sometimes reflect a clear disregard for long-term consequences. In another instance, a DOGE recruiter is seeking engineers to create AI agents intended to replace tens of thousands of government roles, shifting responsibility to automation. While the goal is to "liberate" employees for more impactful tasks, it bears significant risks, given that AI technology is still in its developmental stages and ill-equipped for such responsibilities.
DOGE did not initiate AI within the U.S. government but has accelerated existing projects, such as an internal chatbot at the General Services Administration and updates to previously developed software intended to automate personnel reductions. Even these pre-existing initiatives highlight concerns surrounding the indiscriminate application of AI without adequate oversight or understanding of its implications.
The core issue lies not with AI per se, but with its reckless deployment in critical contexts where errors can have serious repercussions. DOGE’s use of AI is steering it towards a diminished governmental structure, potentially necessitating a reliance on Silicon Valley contractors to fulfill essential functions.
The challenges posed by DOGE’s AI-driven strategies offer an opportunity to reassess how technology can be applied constructively within government. Engaging in thoughtful discourse about the advantages and risks of AI may be a crucial step toward improving efficiency without sacrificing the integrity of government operations.
