There still seems to be people in the loop and this person isn't making any changes himself.
> Sweet’s primary role appears to be leading an effort to leverage artificial intelligence to review HUD’s regulations, compare them to the laws on which they are based, and identify areas where rules can be relaxed or removed altogether. [...] [He] has produced an Excel spreadsheet with around a thousand rows containing areas of policy where the AI tool has flagged that HUD may have “overreached” and suggesting replacement language.
> Staffers from PIH are, specifically, asked to review the AI’s recommendations and justify their objections to those they don’t agree with. “It all sounds crazy—having AI recommend revisions to regulations,” one HUD source says. “But I appreciated how much they’re using real people to confirm and make changes.”
> Once the PIH team completes the review, their recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for approval.
janice1999 · 4h ago
> Once the PIH team completes the review, their recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for approval.
HHS gutted its Office of the General Counsel in early March, closing most of its offices, and consolidated power in new positions created for already appointed loyalists. I doubt housing will avoid the same face.
JumpCrisscross · 4h ago
Further evidence DOGE is not about efficiency. Evidence like this will make overturning their work under the APA as predictable as it will be expensive to the public. Hopefully prosecuting and jailing them will be as straightforward.
vandyswa · 3h ago
Is there any sign of its effectiveness (or lack thereof)? It seems like the world of dense regulatory language may actually be amenable to such techniques. If a (presumably bright) college person driving the tool gives good results--who cares?
The big joke is that anyone thinks they are capable of understanding American administrative law writ large. It's one of the most intricate areas, and those who do understand the broad principles probably understand 5% of the specifics, because there are innumerable agencies and each has its own particularities and practices. It's laughable to think that a youth without even basic law-school training would undertake a revision of agency regulations or the drafting of new ones.
Something, something, Chesterton's Fence.
xqcgrek2 · 4h ago
The only thing suspect here is that they're a college student, which might be a signal of poor judgement in 2025.
dmitrygr · 4h ago
The average age of NASA engineers during the Apollo missions, particularly during Apollo 11, was around 28 years old
karaterobot · 2h ago
I also don't think most people are complaining about his age, as much as his appointment without qualifications in writing policy, and just in general the fact that regulations are being rewritten by someone whose only qualification is the ability to use an AI program. The Apollo engineers went to school for engineering, and were hired because they were good at the jobs they were being asked to do.
mlinhares · 4h ago
Yeah, because all the work the DOGE folks have done so far definitely aligns with what the people at NASA were doing back then.
bilbo0s · 4h ago
I don't know?
I agree that getting 3 guys to the moon seems much harder than running a nation into the ground. That said, isn't that a reason that you'd want younger people in DOGE than in the Apollo program?
All you have to do to run a nation into the ground is blow everything up. It's not a terribly complicated task. The DOGE employees being younger wouldn't seem, to me, to meaningfully restrict their ability to screw up everything. Point of fact is, if you want to run a nation into the ground, being younger could actually be viewed as a qualification. I wouldn't think you'd want people who understand too well what they're doing.
4ndrewl · 4h ago
They were the cream of a very small crop though, not today's bitcoin grifters.
> Sweet’s primary role appears to be leading an effort to leverage artificial intelligence to review HUD’s regulations, compare them to the laws on which they are based, and identify areas where rules can be relaxed or removed altogether. [...] [He] has produced an Excel spreadsheet with around a thousand rows containing areas of policy where the AI tool has flagged that HUD may have “overreached” and suggesting replacement language.
> Staffers from PIH are, specifically, asked to review the AI’s recommendations and justify their objections to those they don’t agree with. “It all sounds crazy—having AI recommend revisions to regulations,” one HUD source says. “But I appreciated how much they’re using real people to confirm and make changes.”
> Once the PIH team completes the review, their recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for approval.
HHS gutted its Office of the General Counsel in early March, closing most of its offices, and consolidated power in new positions created for already appointed loyalists. I doubt housing will avoid the same face.
Something, something, Chesterton's Fence.
I agree that getting 3 guys to the moon seems much harder than running a nation into the ground. That said, isn't that a reason that you'd want younger people in DOGE than in the Apollo program?
All you have to do to run a nation into the ground is blow everything up. It's not a terribly complicated task. The DOGE employees being younger wouldn't seem, to me, to meaningfully restrict their ability to screw up everything. Point of fact is, if you want to run a nation into the ground, being younger could actually be viewed as a qualification. I wouldn't think you'd want people who understand too well what they're doing.