Tag Archives: organization

Trump Gives Elon Musk Access to All Unclassified Data in the US Government

Posted on by

A new executive order appears to grant DOGE leader Elon Musk sweeping access to unclassified data held by US government agencies.

Bait and Switch

The fine print of a sweeping executive order seemingly grants Elon Musk — the wealthiest and arguably most powerful unelected figure in the world — and his associates at the somehow-still-real Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to all unclassified data held by US government agencies, according to Wired.

Since the evening of his inauguration, president Donald Trump has been busy signing a still-growing wave of sweeping executive actions. Among them was the establishment of the unfortunately-named DOGE, which per the order will be tasked with "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity."

When DOGE was announced late last year, it was widely believed that the "department" would operate as a federal advisory committee, a type of consultative group subject to fairly strict transparency rules.

But as flagged by Wired, under the executive order, the Trump Administration didn't create a new federal advisory committee. It instead repurposed the United States Digital Service (USDS), an existing government organization with sweeping access to vast caches of data across government agencies, including the sensitive information of US citizens, as the "United States DOGE Service" — a move that seemingly opens the door for Musk and his operatives to access a massive amount of data without much transparency oversight.

"It's quite a clever way of integrating DOGE into the federal government that I think will work," George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce told Wired, "in the sense of giving it a platform for surveillance and recommendations."

Inside Out

A former USDS employee told Wired that the rebranding of the organization was an "A+ bureaucratic jiu-jitsu move" — and warned of dystopian, surveillance-driven outcomes that access to USDS-held data could foster.

"Is this technical talent going to be pointed toward using data from the federal government to track down opponents?" they told Wired. "To track down particular populations of interest to this administration for the purposes of either targeting them or singling them out or whatever it might end up being?" (That in mind: reporting from NextGov this week revealed that USDS workers are already being re-interviewed for their jobs, in part to gauge their perceived loyalty to the new president.)

As Wired notes, DOGE could still face some headaches regarding the complexities of inter-agency information sharing and the accessing of certain sensitive data, particularly in cases where department members lack certain clearances. Even so, according to experts, our federal government is wading into muddy, unknown waters.

"It could be a bipartisan effort to make government technology work better. It could be an oligarch extracting resources from the government," University of Michigan public policy Don Moynihan told Wired. "We just really don't know."

More on DOGE: DOGE.gov Website Launches With Mangled, AI-Generated American Flag

The post Trump Gives Elon Musk Access to All Unclassified Data in the US Government appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original:
Trump Gives Elon Musk Access to All Unclassified Data in the US Government

Elon Musk’s "Charity" Is Hoarding Money Instead of Giving It to the Needy

Posted on by

Elon Musk's charity is falling short of the minimum amount of money it is supposed to giveaway by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Miser

The holidays may be approaching, but it appears that SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is remaining a total scrooge.

The New York Times reports that the centibillionaire's charity, the Musk Foundation, failed to give away the minimum amount of money it was supposed to last year by a stupendous margin of $421 million.

This continues Musk's pattern of shadily managing his ostensibly philanthropic efforts, such as when he made it seem like he was donating billions of dollars to the United Nations to combat world hunger but instead funneled that money to his own charity.

Now, if Musk doesn't give away that sum by the end of 2024, he will be forced to pay a "sizable penalty" to the Internal Revenue Service, according to NYT's reporting.

Pocket Change

According to the NYT, Musk's charity has increasingly fallen behind on payments despite possessing some $9 billion in assets today. It was $41 million short in 2021, $234 million in 2022, and is now approaching half a billion this year.

He's made up for those shortfalls so far by paying late, but only barely. "The distributions made by the foundation are meeting the bare minimum to avoid penalties," Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at the Ohio State University, told the NYT. "It is clear that the organization is not in a hurry to spend its money."

The newspaper notes that other charitable foundations have fallen short of the IRS's minimum by millions of dollars, but that Musk's is an anomaly even among those because of the staggering sum it has to pay and the rate at which that shortfall is increasing.

And there are other shady facets of the organization, the NYT found. It's never hired employees, and its three directors — Musk is one of them — have spent just two hours per week at the foundation over the past three years.

In the cases where it has actually given away money, it has often gone to organizations with close ties to Musk. In 2023, he made a $137 million donation to a nonprofit called The Foundation run by several of Musk's close associates, which operates a private school in Texas close to where several of Musk's businesses are based and where he plans to build a large subdivision for his employees.

Tax Attack

Ultra-wealthy figures have long used philanthropic organizations as a refuge from the treasury department, taking advantage of their generous tax breaks. That's nothing new.

But this dodgy charity management is especially hypocritical behavior from Musk, who has championed increased scrutiny into how government funds are spent and has proposed slashing trillions of dollars in federal expenditures through his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which will be formed as part of the incoming Trump administration.

One of his chief targets, unsurprisingly, has been the IRS. Musk recently suggested "deleting" the federal agency, while consistently calling for the hollowing out of others. Even before his DOGE crusade and overt rightward turn, Musk has groused publicly about government tax men and spread obvious falsities about the IRS.

For someone so concerned about scrupulous spending, then, it seems that Musk can be quite underhanded with how he spends his fortune.

More on Musk: Elon Musk Gloats as Trump Announces Billionaires Will Be Exempt From Normal Environmental Rules

The post Elon Musk's "Charity" Is Hoarding Money Instead of Giving It to the Needy appeared first on Futurism.

See original here:
Elon Musk's "Charity" Is Hoarding Money Instead of Giving It to the Needy

Government Test Finds That AI Wildly Underperforms Compared to Human Employees

Posted on by

A series of blind assessments found that human-written summaries scored significantly better than summaries generated by AI.

Sums It Up

Generative AI is absolutely terrible at summarizing information compared to humans, according to the findings of a trial for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) spotted by Australian outlet Crikey.

The trial, conducted by Amazon Web Services, was commissioned by the government regulator as a proof of concept for generative AI's capabilities, and in particular its potential to be used in business settings.

That potential, the trial found, is not looking promising.

In a series of blind assessments, the generative AI summaries of real government documents scored a dire 47 percent on aggregate based on the trial's rubric, and were decisively outdone by the human-made summaries, which scored 81 percent.

The findings echo a common theme in reckonings with the current spate of generative AI technology: not only are AI models a poor replacement for human workers, but their awful reliability means it's unclear if they'll have any practical use in the workplace for the majority of organizations.

Signature Shoddiness

The assessment used Meta's open source Llama2-70B, which isn't the newest model out there, but with up to 70 billion parameters, it's certainly a capable one.

The AI model was instructed to summarize documents submitted to a parliamentary inquiry, and specifically to focus on what was related to ASIC, such as where the organization was mentioned, and to include references and page numbers. Alongside the AI, human employees at ASIC were asked to write summaries of their own.

Then five evaluators were asked to assess the human and the AI-generated summaries after reading the original documents. These were done blindly — the summaries were simply labeled A and B — and scorers had no clue that AI was involved at all.

Or at least, they weren't supposed to. At the end, when the assessors had finished up and were told about the true nature of the experiment, three said that they suspected they were looking at AI outputs, which is pretty damning on its own.

Sucks On All Counts

All in all, the AI performed lower on all criteria compared to the human summaries, the report said.

Strike one: the AI model was flat-out incapable of providing the page numbers of where it got its information.

That's something the report notes can be fixed with some tinkering with the AI model. But a more fundamental issue was that it regularly failed to pick up on nuance or context, and often made baffling choices about what to emphasize or highlight.

Beyond that, the AI summaries tended to include irrelevant and redundant information and were generally "waffly" and "wordy."

The upshot: these AI summaries were so bad that the assessors agreed that using them could require more work down the line, because of the amount of fact-checking they require. If that's the case, then the purported upsides of using the technology — cost-cutting and time-saving — are seriously called into question.

More on AI: NaNoWriMo Slammed for Saying That Opposition to AI-Generated Books Is Ableist

The post Government Test Finds That AI Wildly Underperforms Compared to Human Employees appeared first on Futurism.

Excerpt from:
Government Test Finds That AI Wildly Underperforms Compared to Human Employees