If LLMs were good at summarization, this wouldn't be necessary. Turns out a stochastic model of language is not a summary in the way humans think of summaries. Thus all this extra faff.
This is where my thoughts went too. I see no reason to speculate about this in the absence of clear and persuasive comparison examples with other fine tuning content.
"DOGE currently has far deeper and far more extensive access to U.S. government computer systems — and is far deeper into the national security space — than is conceivably necessary for anything related to their notional brief and goals."
You didn't make a case for any of that. No one did. This whole discussion is just a bunch of people who have their feelings hurt when other people tell them a LLM is modeling language, not reasoning. It's so narcissistic. "My opinion on AI is criticized so I'm oppressed."
That is not how oppression and power work. That's not how discussion works. That not how Foucault's analysis of power works.
Throwing your hands up in the air like this doesn't help build a constructive case for using the word reasoning. It builds a case that words mean whatever
Yes my main takeaway from the musk flagging discussions on here is that tech people are no where near capable of taking responsibility for their central role in this mess. If I call all my sins "politics", say discussing politics is off the table, then magically you can't say anything bad about me!