slowmovintarget

I suspect this one wasn't the "economics of AI" though. This one was bait and switch (intentional or not). They generated a huge user base, then clamped down on many of the things that drew the user base to them in the first place, then acted surprised when those users left because they couldn't get what they wanted there.

And yes, I'm talking about the landslide of NSFW stuff that had to be culled to turn it into an acquisition-friendly target.

Don't have data... I'm guessing.

See. Detached from reality. :)

Your therapist and reality don't meet often, do they.

Except we know for a fact that the exact effect the H1B program had on science is to depress the number of Americans hired for post-docs hired for work in American universities.

You can wave around theories, or we can discuss what actually happened with the program. In the 1940s and 50s we had refugees, but we also had an extremely robust academy producing the likes of Feynman, Wheeler, Thorn, Everett and many more. Then we blew that up, because foreign students were cheap virtually indentured servants.

Enter today's world where tech is doing the same. America doesn't have an obligation to favor or subsidize foreign employment. If we had a system producing more Wheelers, Feynmans, and Thorns, it would still be worthwhile to immigrate and work with them, for a full salary. The same goes for tech. I want to attract foreign students and foreign workers to the American system, not to the American subsidy.

By setting up a jobs market for foreigners but not for Americans, and by allowing corporations to install immigrant intake machines at the expense of Americans? Yes. That's what needs fixing.

I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm not in favor of H1Bs and the "default" pathway.

If we don't get educated and employed as Americans, then yes, we'll be committing suicide.

If someone's post-graduate work is that important, and that particular individual is so unbelievably critical to that particular post-doc work, then surely the fee would be worth it. If it's not, then advantaging the market for post-docs in America to actual Americans seems like a good thing, something governments are meant to do for their citizens.

Is there a reason the American government shouldn't be allowed to act on behalf of its citizens and must act in favor of everyone else?

Good to know. I was about to switch my planner/designer agents to Opus 5.5.

I've been hearing that it was like this initially, and then suddenly the slop speak and gaslighting are back. It's like Anthropic deployed it without their "watermarking" and then layered it on. (Or at least people online are complaining about the sudden change in quality.)

Any differences in the last 24 hours?

No. The person that set the agent in motion is liable. If your agent, infused with magic inference juice you only partially understand, but picked up and used any way, does something harmful, you are to blame.

You may have a case that the magic inference juice was somehow tainted, but that seems like a stretch. If you run your car into someone else, and it isn't a total failure of the systems of the car, you did that, not the car, and not the car company.

I posted the same observation, then saw yours. Yours is better (at 0.92 certainty) so I deleted my post.

Read to the end... The front matter is context to the conclusion:

> This all most recently came together over the weekend, and they got Dario Amodei and Sam Altman and Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis all onto the same page to say they wanted to WAIVE ANTI-TRUST LAWS so that they could "pace", or slow down, research.

> I feel about this roughly the same way I would feel about all the pharmaceutical companies getting together to say they wanted to waive anti-trust laws so they could form a cartel to ban medical research:

> these people are the enemies of humanity.

> Also: Much of AI research IS medical research. They are very literally proposing to stop a pretty good chunk of medical research in its tracks so that they don't have to fear the paperclipper.

> There are many regulations I would be in favor of, but they only ever want to form a cartel or a world government against the paperclipper.

> No other industry has ever framed any regulation in terms of "stop", "pause", or "slow down". Those are insane ways to consider any form of policy. Policy should prevent bad outcomes and encourage good ones, it is never about some specific speed.

> This industry frames its regulations in this way because it has, at its core, a millenarian death cult that worships and fears AI as the cause of the end of the world, that feels compelled to create AI, and that at least somewhat wants to destroy AI as a field.