finolex1

There's different degrees of talent. An international student who graduates from Stanford or MIT would not qualify for an O1 visa, but the US would be shooting itself in the foot to send them back.

It's not so simple because it's also a drop in demand for american goods and services. Fewer taxes paid, less consumption, etc.

The issue is what happens if/when the models grow capable enough that the providers can't stop them even if they want to. You could have strict penalties but that's not going to solve an open research question.

Not really relevant to this article, which is about graduate students in research programs, who get a stipend and don't pay anything. Of course, low stipends are also a big detractor for potential students

Forget AI, Google/Microsoft/Amazon could all in theory have built a clone of Jira/Figma/<x> tool by now. But large companies lack the focus and commitment needed to build true competitors to these products, especially if it's not a big enough market to make a real difference to their bottom line.

Perhaps this will change soon if AI models reach the "army of geniuses in a datacenter" level, but current models are a far cry from just being able to clone Jira or Asana.

It's not so simple because:

1. Companies can hire overseas. There's some cost to it in terms of added friction, but if wages rise enough in C1, then it's worth the friction to hire in C2 instead.

2. Workers also consume and invest, raising demand for other jobs. Employment is not a zero sum game, especially at the macro scale.

How is that different from the US? Immigrants also get booted here if they lose their job. They also pay social security, Medicare, and other taxes but usually don't get the benefits unless they stay here for long enough and get a green card.

You're attributing way too much intent to what is the viewpoint of some random analyst at Goldman Sachs (who doesn't even control any purse strings). A year ago there was another big hullabaloo when a GS team wrote a long post about how AI companies would never make enough revenue.

This is either insanely ambitious genius or pure shithousery. I guess we'll find out which one it is in 10 years

Singapore.

But anyways, the order of causation is probably reversed. Cities with high density are forced to invest in good public transport by sheer public demand and pressure.

In this case, there might be some truth to the statement.

Not in the sense that AI is replacing current jobs, but that they would rather invest that money in Anthropic or on Data Center buildouts

Is there anything substantial in his list ("agents, subagents, their prompts, contexts, memory, modes, permissions, tools, plugins, skills, hooks, MCP, LSP, slash commands, workflows, IDE integrations") that Claude Code or Cursor don't already incorporate?

I empathize with his sense that if we could just provide the right context and development harness to an AI model, we could be *that* much more productive, but it might just be misplaced hope. Claude Code and Cursor are probably not that far from the current frontier for LLM development environments.

Residents of every city claim that they have the craziest drivers or toughest streets to navigate in. London isn't really that materially harder to drive in than San Francisco.