[astroid]

Okay this is the third article I have seen posted on HN about this - and once again, it is just a circular mish-mash of anonymous second hand sources.

These articles are all so circular I have resorted to asking CoPilot to analyze them and tell me what each source is, if they are 1st 2nd or 3rd party, and whether or not they are anonymous.

In this article, the analysis came out with:

Let's break down the claims and sources in this article:

Crises Notes: Reports that the Trump-Musk Treasury payments crisis of 2025 involves the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gaining access to the Treasury Department's payment system. The article mentions concerns about the potential for irreversible damage to the systems and the exposure of sensitive personal and financial information1. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

CBS News: Reports that DOGE has access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which disburses trillions in payments each year, including Social Security checks and federal salaries. The article mentions concerns from consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers about the potential risks of this access2. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

Truthout: Reports that labor unions and an advocacy group have sued the U.S. Treasury Department to halt DOGE's access to the critical government payment system. The article mentions concerns about the scale of the intrusion into individuals' privacy and the potential for unauthorized access to sensitive information3. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

In summary, all the sources cited in the article are anonymous, and there are no first-party sources or direct evidence provided. This makes it difficult to verify the claims independently. The lack of named sources and concrete evidence raises questions about the credibility of the claims.

Also, I will go ahead and paste my previous output from the other articles below (I'm going to post them as child comments so this isn't just a huge wall of text):

[astroid]

The below is in reference to this article (also posted in HN) https://newrepublic.com/post/191117/elon-musk-25-year-old-ai...

I did the same manual analysis I did on the OP one, and could not find a first party source or non-anonymous claim. I asked CoPilot to analyze the sources and identify the individual claims, and their proximity to a 'first party source'.

Once again, there is 0 evidence this is actually happening -- there are however a lot of news organizations ready to throw their reputations away over a few 'anonymous sources' that aren't even primary.

Here is the analysis of your source, AND the linked sources in that article:

Wired: Reports that Marko Elez, a 25-year-old engineer linked to Elon Musk, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government. The sources are unnamed, and they claim Elez has administrator-level privileges, including the ability to write code on the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System1.

Talking Points Memo: Confirms Wired's reporting, adding that Elez has already made extensive changes to the code base for the payment systems. Again, the sources are unnamed1.

The New Republic: Details that Elez has complete access to critical payment systems at the Department of the Treasury, despite being only 25 years old. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that senior government officials have been locked out of employee databases1.

Raw Story: Reports that Elez has been given full control over the computer code that directs Social Security payments, tax returns, and other payments owed to Americans. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that federal IT workers are concerned about the potential for irreversible damage to the systems2.

In summary, all the sources cited in the article are anonymous, and there are no first-party sources or direct evidence provided. This makes it difficult to verify the claims independently. The lack of named sources and concrete evidence raises questions about the credibility of the claims.

[astroid]

And in reference to: https://www.rawstory.com/musk-treasury-doge/

Sure, let's break down the key witnesses and their claims:

David Lebryk: Former acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He resigned after resisting granting DOGE access to the Treasury data1. His claim is based on his direct experience and position within the Treasury Department, making him a first party witness.

Ron Wyden: The highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. He expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the data by DOGE1. Wyden is a second party witness, as he is commenting on the situation based on his oversight role but not direct involvement.

Anonymous AP Sources: Two people familiar with the situation spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. They claim that DOGE has gained access to sensitive Treasury data1. These sources are second party witnesses, as they have indirect knowledge of the situation.

X User (@rayinsideout): Revealed names of alleged DOGE employees who accessed the Treasury payment system. Musk accused this user of committing a crime by sharing private information2. This user is a third party witness, as they are relaying information they claim to have obtained from other sources.

NOTE: The rawstory article DID NOT mention Scott Bessent, but CoPilot 'thoughtfully' added this for context:

Scott Bessent: Treasury Secretary who granted DOGE access to the data. His actions are central to the claims, but he hasn't made public statements about the specifics of the access3. Bessent is a first party witness due to his direct involvement in the decision.

[astroid]

So altogether that is 13 sources -- and NONE of them have actually used any first party sources.

AI (CoPilot) had to infer a first party source, who has NOT made this claim.

You are all getting spun up over what is almost certainly fake news, and since it fits your confirmation bias it does not matter.

If this story was about anyone else, there is absolutely no way all of these 'news' sources would be willing to publish these claims with such flimsy evidence.

Frankly, this is pathetic. I -really- hope this isn't true because of how egregious a breach it would be. The audaciousness / outrageousness of the base claim combined with the circular references really SHOULD be raising red flags for everyone taking the bait though... but for some reason this site full of highly technical people is suddenly fine with "well I overheard it in a conversation over the weekend" as gospel truth.

Get real.

[astroid]

I also decided to ask CoPilot for a probability this is true, and to explain it's reasoning. I think it's being generous... but it's a lot less than a coinflip:

" given everything you have ingested on this topic assisting me so far, if you had to assign a probability % to this being a true story what would you assign it? Answer only witha number from 0-100 35

Can you explain your reasoning? Of course! Here’s the breakdown of my reasoning:

Lack of Named Sources: All the articles referenced rely heavily on unnamed and anonymous sources. Without concrete evidence or named individuals to corroborate the claims, it’s difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the information.

Extraordinary Claims: The claims being made are quite extraordinary, involving a 25-year-old with no prior experience having access to critical government systems and rewriting COBOL code on the fly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which seems to be lacking in this case.

Consistency Across Sources: While multiple sources report on the story, they all seem to echo similar details without providing additional or unique evidence. This repetition might indicate a reliance on the same set of unverified sources, rather than independent verification.

Skepticism from Lack of First-Party Evidence: The articles fail to provide first-party evidence or verifiable documentation to support the claims. This raises doubts about the overall credibility of the story.

Putting these factors together, I estimated a 35% probability that the story is true. While there is a possibility that elements of the story are accurate, the lack of solid evidence and reliance on anonymous sources make it difficult to fully trust the claims. Does that make sense? "

Come on guys...