Who would you put in charge of millions of dollars of research and jobs in the humanities field? Would you choose two tech bros in their twenties, with no background in government, using ChatGPT as a weapon?
That is what Elon Musk thought would be a good choice when he selected people for his “Department of Government Efficiency.” In depositions part of a lawsuit to restore grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, DOGE staffers Nathan Cavanaugh and Justin Fox were questioned on how they chose which grants to keep and which to cut.
According to the released files, the staffers enlisted ChatGPT, without the knowledge of acting head of NEH Michael McDonald, asking the AI, “Does the following relate at all to DEI.” They specified, “Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.”
Neither Fox nor Cavanaugh have backgrounds in academic research or scholarly peer review. So, why were they chosen to cut grants that have gone through the peer review process?
While all of this should make any academic mad, the most frustrating part is their use of ChatGPT. If these grants had been given more than 120 words, there are very good chances they would have continued to be funded. But this is not the worst part; that lies in what ChatGPT actually answered.
ChatGPT reported back on a $349,000 HVAC improvement grant for the High Point Museum, a local history museum in North Carolina, with, “Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences.”
In other words, because the HVAC systems would potentially increase the “diversity” of the museum audience, it must go.
To summarize: An AI platform directed two ignorant kids to cut years of work, representation and livelihood to fuel their own egos and those of their oligarchical overlords.
What is at stake here is the value we place on expertise and critical inquiry. If we allow scholarly work to be judged by algorithmic shortcuts, we are flattening understanding into something convenient and superficial. And that is a trade we cannot afford to make.