Thanks for the link. This surprised me: “These high retention rates are important, because a large majority (about 2/3) of grad students getting trained in AI-related programs at US universities are not American citizens”
The current situation of making it difficult for recent graduates to get green cards could put pressure on retention (having students staying in the US). At my last job I tried for about a year to replace a deep learning engineer after someone on my team left for a dream job.
Currently many white collar jobs (like Wall Street analysts) are getting eliminated by deep learning and other models automation. I predict that it will be 5 to 7 years before most routine deep learning development will be largely automated, but until we achieve this, it is really important to have trained people to do the work. That said, top level AI research will not be automated in the near future.
Is any sizable portion of these jobs interchangeable with deep learning?
The best deep learning engineers with infinite hardware built Amazon’s recommendation algorithm, and it’s largely trash. I can’t imagine it’s magically thousands of times more capable for these other tasks.
> built Amazon’s recommendation algorithm, and it’s largely trash
What is trash for you may not actually be reflective of how good the algorithm is. My experience is that Amazon's algorithm actually works somewhat well.
Recommendation algorithms usually work well for people who are closer to average (i.e. their preferences being closer to the aggregate). People who deviate from the average tend to get poorer recommendations. It does even worse for segments that deviate so far from average where there are few sample points.
Recommendation algorithms optimize for aggregate conversion -- if it can get the most number of people to convert, it is good (for the merchant) even if it looks like your personal recommendations suck. It's all a matter of perspective on what "good" is.
And the statement you made above "Currently many white collar jobs (like Wall Street analysts) are getting eliminated by deep learning and other models automation." is complete bullshit. I don't care if your other name is Yann Lecun; that statement is completely false.
This topic has been in the news a lot in 2019. Try a web search for “wall street analysts replaced by ai deep learning”. Again, just my opinion: formerly high paying jobs will be lost, with the best people in each category retained and their work augmented with next generation AI and otherwise automated systems.
Look, there are a ton of marketing submarines[1] on this topic, and there is precious little fact checking involved. I've worked on numerous wall street projects, I presently advise several HF startups; higher frequency and low, have consulted for a couple of fintech companies in the recent past, I've worked with advanced research teams at JPMC, Citi, Credit Suisse, a couple of big HF you've heard of and smaller ones you've never heard of. I regularly talk to one of the best regarded academic guys who attempts to apply DL to trading problems. I keep my ear to the ground as to the latest trends; people on the street talk to me because I'm a funny asshole and I know what I'm talking about. I have found zero evidence DL is being used in the financial services industry at all.
The reasons for this should be quite clear. It isn't appropriate for this kind of work. Pretty much all financial problems are insanely noisy, and DL is shit at dealing with any kind of noise, both in labeled, unlabeled and reinforcement configurations. Trading problems on short time horizons can harvest innovations vastly faster than DL can keep up using what amounts to Kalman filter like ideas. Long time horizons don't have enough data to fit a meaningful DL model even if 90% of the spectrum weren't noise. We're not talking something like automatic translation where you basically have all the clean data on the internet to fit to. The only place I could imagine it being used at the two-sigmas of the world is in natural language processing, but since you are asserting something completely different, that's irrelevant.
R&D departments, of course, fool around with it. And fintech companies are definitely implying they're using it because ... everyone else is. IRL they're all doing some kind of Markowitz MPT with factor models spooge. If you have any actual evidence that there is some large scale automation of wall street analysts facilitated by deep learning: I'd love to see it. Marketing submarines riding the DL hype chuckwagon are not evidence.
Mandatory comment complaining about Twitter threads, especially one with so many pictures. I'd rather read the entire report than suffer through that summary.
Another recommendation: "Automatically grant green cards to postgraduate degree holders."
This idea may have some merit, but I want to be very blunt about this - PhD programs aren't doing a good job attracting and retaining good students, at least not the ones who aren't bound by US residency and work rights in their choice about what sort of degree to pursue. Elite Law and Medical schools typically have an attrition rate of below one half of one percent, <0.5%. For PhD programs, it's typically 35%-50%, and while there's less data for MS programs, we're still looking at 25%. Sorry no cite, I documented this a few times in comments, I may go back and get it later.
On a personal level, I was a doctoral student in an engineering program at Berkeley, and I will say with full confidence they couldn't give less of a fuck if a student fails to get the degree. I don't swear on HN much, and if you look at my history, I hope you'll see I don't like to troll. But in this case, I'll repeat it, they could. not. give. a. fuck.
Give these people power to bestow the right to reside in the US, and I assure you, the'll give even less of a fuck if anyone is happy in their program, or if their PhD or even MS programs are competitive with MBA, Law, Medicine, and other programs that require attracting and retaining people who already have the right to live and work in the US.
JDs and MDs are not the same as PhDs. The first two are important credentials. A career as a doctor or lawyer is going to be hard without them. But you can certainly have a research career without a PhD, or do something research-adjacent and make more money. Lawyers and doctors don’t seem to have the same incentives.
In this respect, CS is kind of a special case in that "knows how to code" can get you started on a good career regardless of credentials. Outside of CS, a PhD is absolutely an important credential and is just as much of a career game-changer as an MD is
So then why are we supposed to be worried specifically about the pipeline of PHDs? Why would we make a special point to grant automatic green cards to degrees that aren’t really necessary?
I’m not arguing that a PhD is a meaningless credential, rather that the drop-off in employability (for most things that aren’t faculty jobs) from “PhD holder” to “dropped out after quals, but did some research and can code” is much smaller than the drop off between “MD” and “dropped out of med school, but knows some medicine”. So the gap in attrition rates isn’t solely a function of a better or worse experience.
I still think it’s good to try to keep people who get PhDs, especially in areas I think are important, like machine learning research.
But I agree that making a PhD an even more useful credential is unlikely to increase the quality of the PhD experience itself.
i think that if you give PhD programs the power to grant green cards, they’ll become even more abusive. So abusive, in fact, that the only real reason to put up with them is because they control your hopes of getting a green card.
I an in favor of immigration. I am not in favor of giving PhD programs power over the system so they can remain uncompetitive with the options free people have when choosing a degree or path in life.
I agree that keeping top AI talent (along with several other key sectors) in the US is absolutely critical to maintain America's superpower status long term. It seems to me that the US became a power and remained one for so long in no small part because of the opportunities provided to foreigners here and being a 'nation of immigrants' which attracted the best and brightest from abroad to contribute to the economy, defense, and more. I was lucky enough to have been born in the US so I've got no need to go through the visa process but hearing from friends and colleagues, it sounds like an absolute nightmare. Still, the US could get away with it because we were the place everyone wanted to be - now with our difficulties in healthcare, declining infrastructure, violence issues (perceived or real, especially around guns), and low education standards paired with many EU nations being very attractive and welcoming, I think we need to dramatically step up our work trying to be competitive attracting talent.
What's wrong with developing AI talent within the US? It doesn't necessarily have to come from other countries. The US has over 300 million citizens and your telling me they're all too dumb to learn AI? Even, if just 10% could become AI specialists, I think that would be several orders of magnitude more then enough. Just teach it in high school, and develop some college majors that specialize in AI.
I think we have general tendency to underestimate what hard working people are capable of. All we need to do is guide them in the right direction and make sure the majors required are available.
>In fact, international students are responsible for basically all growth in AI-related grad programs at US universities in the past decades.
>Or, in other words: there were as many American citizens getting CS/EE grad degrees in 2016 as there were in 1990.
The push for STEM has been incessant for extremely real concerns. Our population is just. not. entering. the STEM graduate courses. Yes, this needs to change, but it's a cultural problem, not an availability problem.
A cultural problem? No, it's an economic/policy problem. PhDs are effectively being compensated with green cards instead of money. This compensation package is much more attractive to foreign students for obvious reasons.
I'll never forget the day in lab meeting when it came out that I was a US citizen. I thought my accent and appearance would have made it obvious, but evidently my coworkers had assumed otherwise, and the response was an astonished "Then what the hell are you still doing in academia?" followed by looks of pity when I admitted to loving research. This was a biomedical lab at Carnegie Mellon about a decade ago and I was the only one doing ML work, so their astonishment was in part due to an underestimation of the market value of my degree, but on the other hand their intuition was likely accurate with regard to the STEM PhD market outside of AI.
Those PhDs are worth $pittance + green card, but not worth $pittance.
As recent grad student, I can relate this comment. Unless the school provides competitive compensation to attract US citizens to pursue PhD, it does not make sense economically for a US citizen to not enter industry instead.
I trippled my compensation by deciding to work in industry.
STEM graduate programs are for the most part immigration programs for India and China. Going to STEM graduate school for Americans who don’t need to jump through immigration hoops quite often has negative expected value, not to mention the stress and lack of career options in academia.
And not only that, but the push for STEM imo has more to do with lowering wages and getting more software engineers (especially for S and M, I don’t think there is any real critical lack of PhDs. In fact a very large amount of physics and math phds just go into data science or software engineering). It’s entirely an economic problem, if it’s even a problem at all.
One of my American classmates who loved science got a masters in physics said all the jobs they could get were either joining PhD programs or building instruments so they switched to programming in 1990!
Isn't that the exact opposite of what people say when somebody points out underrepresentation by women in tech? That it doesn't have anything to do with ability or interest, but a hostile environment that's keeping them out?
If my experience from high school is still relevant, showing interest in much of anything besides the opposite sex, drugs, and music was considered uncool and being a tryhard.
I was an undergrad in the late 90s, and even then there was no point. It made sense if you wanted to pursue an academic career (barely) and it made sense for immigration purposes. Personally, I’m an advocate for very open immigration, instead of creating weird niche paths to citizenship.
Partly. But I also think that targeted immigration programs have allowed these fields to staff up without raising wages to levels that educated people who don’t need visa sponsorship can find in law, business, and medicine.
We know that the productivity of the very top researchers is not just some incremental percentage over others, it is often multiple times higher.
Check out the list of names under departments with publications in top AI conferences in the last three years. A large percentage, maybe even most, were not born in the US.
(Although the number of publications in top conferences is not a perfect measure, it is a pretty good one and correlates with most other measures one would think of as important.)
The world is also catching up. Among the “top 20” departments, according to this measure between 2017-2019, 10 are in the US, 9 in Asia (7 China, 2 Singapore), 1 in Israel.
Also note how many top researchers in sciences and engineering, not only AI, who helped build the US into the technological powerhouse in many fields, over the last century, were born in another country. It is not a coincidence. World population is 7.8 billion or > 20 times US population.
.
Another major issue is math skills. Given that there are many technological specialties that require excellent math training and aptitude, it is possible that there are too few people growing up in the US who received that training and supportive environment during their formative years.
A conversation among many Asian students is how easy American math curriculum is. It is estimated to be 2 or 3 years behind the same grade level of many countries in Asia. The PISA 2018 results also show some concerning evidence:
100% agree. I am especially bothered by the implicit agism in the study. PhD students tend to be in their early to mid-20s. There is a much larger pool of older engineers in the United States who can be re-trained as AI specialists. Instead of a call to keep AI talents in the United States, we should be re-training existing talents in AI technologies.
Why are these older engineers not training themselves already, and who should be training them? If people in one of the highest demand and best paid professions out there cannot take some time to keep their skills up to date, why does it fall to some nebulous "we" to apply re-training to them?
If there's some geopolitical reason that it's a good idea for the government or someone to offer them free training programs, I'm all for it, but I'm not understanding the moral argument.
PhD programs are just not competitive from a pay or work/life balance that by implicit design they tend to deter people older with industry experience from starting along the path.
You want a network effect to collect talent from anywhere & then tax it. Children growing up in this culture will be more prone to tap into this. Immigration laws insulate this process. Eventually the talent will be collected somewhere less insulated, & then the American talent will be moving there
If I want to steal your jobs, I don't need a visa. I do it well enough from Vancouver, along with all the other employees who are in between visa issues. Canada will accept our taxes in the meantime
US residents have to compete with prospective students from other countries. Some of those countries rank better than the US when coming to STEM subjects. They end up getting admission ahead of US residents.
Solution is to improve teaching of STEM subjects at primary and high school level. The problem will sort itself. Second option is protectionist in nature. Favour US residents ahead of international students, even when international students are way better. Second option will only drop the quality of PhD graduates coming from those colleges.
It is because this has nothing to do with US security. It is a continuation of the propaganda started in the 1980s-1990s of cheap labor in the sciences.
Actually, training and allowing these people to work (in potentially very advanced technologies) is ANTI-security.
But it is monetarily beneficial for the shareholders of companies who will benefit from the research conducted by "cheap but smart Asians". Fundamentally, this article should be considered treasonous because it is anything but pro-American.
We have a massive issue in this country of certain elites feeling entirely negated from any responsibility towards their fellow citizens.
I don’t see the problem with attracting smart people from around the world and turning them into smart Americans. That appears to be how we built this country.
Strawman rebuttal. No one has a problem with actually smart people becoming Americans. And I never made any mention of the historical complexity of America.
> That appears to be how we built this country.
You do realize that the Native Americans would consider this a very racist remark. There did exist advanced civilizations in the Americas before "immigrants" came to try to rule it all.
Also, the slaves that helped build this country were not brought here because they were well-educated abroad and driven.
And the poor Chinese that helped build this country were not well-educated abroad and driven to build railroads elsewhere in the world.
This country was built by driven people, many of whom were very intelligent, but this simplistic view you are proposing is not only not true it is actually degrading to all those in the history of this country that contributed a lot without being considered "smart" by the elite.
Perhaps, we should avoid overly simplistic conclusions and viewpoints?
Its kinda weird that the main reason that US grad schools are so good is that its full of international students who have to be there to get green cards. Its a symbiotic relationship. Take away the opportunity or desire to immigrate and no one needs a MS/PhD any more.
But the logical conclusion of that premise (if we want to be formal) is that what ACTUALLY makes US grad schools great is equivalent to what incentive these students have to become US citizens.
I would propose highest salaries in the world as that incentive. There is nothing fundamentally superior about American culture or politics to many other countries, so that seems like the most reasonable conclusion to me.
Thus, do you really need to worry about retaining talent after you have assessed the true underlying incentive? The simple answer is no. Americans getting paid more than anyone else, game-theoretically, guarantees the smartest people will not only try but absolutely find a way to live and thrive in America.
Speaking of incentives, if we know that is the main driver of smart immigration then one can wonder what is the "true" incentive behind published "research" like this.
For example, conclusions like this:
>U.S. policymakers can ... control whether the United States remains an attractive
and welcoming destination for international talent.
are simply not true (at least in attracting the truly best and most desirable candidates).
Yes, because H1B applications for those with advanced degrees (which includes MS) are in a higher priority pool than those with just BS, so their application gets processed much faster.
US essentially has an H1B visa quota of 85k per year, with 65k being the regular pool and 20k being the advanced degree pool. It is always advantageous to file for the advanced pool if you can, because if the quota for the advanced degrees got filled for the year, the spillover people (i.e., the ones with advanced degrees who didn't get their visa approved yet) get put in the regular pool for that specific year.
Wrong: There is no advanced degree pool. There is a "has a degree from some U.S. tertiary institution" pool. Doesn't matter how many Ph.D.s awarded by top universities in the rest of the world one has.
Despite the hoopla from various organs of state, I'm at the point of thinking the US government is violently committed to the destruction of the US talent pool. Professional societies outside engineering (medicine, law, military) need to belly up to the bar and move the "professional" grade math requirements from calculus to linear algebra. Society has advanced technologically, sorry.
Jack Hidary, author of the fantastic new book “Quantum Computing: An Applied Approach”, makes the excellent point that linear algebra should be taught before calculus.
The particular version of linear algebra I took was taken after differential equations, and generally considered the hardest course in the undergraduate curriculum, reserved for EE and physics majors only. In the case of us physics majors, it was a pre-req for thermal physics (statistical mechanics), and due to timing, there was only one semester you could take it.
I think you are very close to being 100% correct, but in my opinion it is not the US government that is motivated to reduce our talent pool, but rather, the corporate interests that our government services.
While that’s true, there’s another aspect that’s more lucrative: Number of direct reports and actual power. Even for technical/research position, you’ll get hundreds of people reporting below you if the compensation is really $1M (500k even honestly). The career ceiling which is common in the west doesn’t really exist. Many talented people I know choose to leave for that reason, because their position is much much higher(e.g one former senior engineer in google becomes “director of Recommendation group” with hundreds direct report in one of BAT)
Well there’s a director in most research institute right? In FAIR/MSR they also have science managers which are top researchers themselves. At some point it’s more lucrative to have fellow researchers and supporting engineers and access to more resources. While it might not be that appealing to some people, it indeed attracted many others.
People always talk about how much they hate corporate ladders, but honestly most will happily accept a new position with a shinny title
It is by no means clear that what is termed "AI" today is indeed the artificial intelligence that we all seek, love and fear and that will prove useful. Perhaps most current "AI" researchers are wasting their time. Perhaps not. Some useful metrics would help judge this, but in the absence of even a clear definition of intelligence I see little hope of that.
In the absence of further information I hesitate to dedicate funding preferably to "AI" based on faith alone. I might as well spend the money on cheaper and more reliable power turbines for remote wooded areas in California or finding a clean way to mine and convert coal to energy. Maybe the money would be better spent upgrading the health-care system or replacing our Navy with something more likely to survive a flurry of cheap cruise missiles.
There are an infinite number of ways to spend money and "keeping top AI talent" is far down my list.
What about people following non traditional ways into AI? For me I graduated with my Bachelors degree . I have refined GPT 2 without going for my PHD . I hear of data scientists getting jobs even having less official education.
Top AI talent seems to be too narrow in this example.
We had some great pitches. A beautiful deck. Voice, AI, Alexa. Met with a number of VC. Just to hard to deal with, I'm thinking we should have approached China. I left the company, they seemed to have imploded. They finally got a few $$$, heard the VC are taking 40%.
China? They seem to get it. Here it's a bloodbath to raise a dime. For money is our new God. I'm not sure China is at that point yet.
I’ve worked in and traveled around the US for a few years ( Nashville, San Antonio, Palo Alto, SF, Portland, Houston, Atlanta). I left the US in 2014 and haven’t returned since then.
I can share that the horror stories I read about the current US politics, climate change denial, police excesses, homelessness and the related squalor have reduced my interest in considering the US as a long term home :(
I’d rather innovate in other countries that are friendly and safer ( I’m in Singapore now).
I work with a PhD in mechanical engineering, who shares my views about the US not being a Long term place to stay at ( at least based on current status).
The rest of the world used to see the US as a leader, as a peace keeper. Now, not at all. :(
- Singaporean citizens of Chinese heritage tend to enjoy preferred treatment over their Malay and Indian counterparts. Examples of overt discrimination include employment ads specifying that someone must be of Chinese origin to apply.
- the Singaporean government censors sexual, political, religious, and racially sensitive material. Lawsuits are often used to quiet dissidents. Journalists often self-censor, to limit their legal liability. This also limits the development and prevalence of non-commercial art
- members of the LGBT community face discrimination in Singapore. Male on male sex is illegal. It is difficult for members of the LGBT community to find housing (landlord discrimination).
- punishments commonly involve caning and long prison sentences.
Isn't it sad that, in spite of what you described, the US is perceived as substantially worse than Singapore by people around the world? Via https://www.reputationinstitute.com/country-reptrak - Singapore is 20, US is 34.
Just goes to show the negative PR campaign is working.
Obviously the U.S. has problems, but on the whole it is pretty great. I’ve traveled quite a bit and lived in other countries, and some are better in some respects, worse in others by a large margin.
People complain about police at schools in the U.S. (and it’s fair) but I don’t feel comfortable in Paris walking by a Jewish school that has soldiers with rifles standing outside either. YMMV. ️
The sad part (speaking as a non-American who has lived in the US) is that the negative PR campaign doesn’t even come from America’s enemies, it comes from within. And it’s not driven by ill will, as far as I can figure out, but petty tribalism.
At some point in the past few decades it became de rigeur among a certain fraction (eg those in this thread) of the US population to shit on their own country at every opportunity, to distinguish themselves from those flag-waving yahoos in the other tribe. Patriotism became heavily tribalised, and saying good things about America in certain parts of the country gets you ostracised as one of those uneducated Republican types who is too stupid to see that absolutely everything is so much better in every other country and if it isn’t then it doesn’t count.
Combine this with the US saturation of global media, and you can turn on the TV in every country and see Americans shitting on America. Eventually the message starts to sink in.
People in America need to get more perspective, and quit letting every single thing that comes out of their mouth be determined by some boring red vs blue conflict.
You're being downvoted, but having grown up between conservative enclaves (overseas military base, Texas A&M) and ultra progressive domains (years in NYC and Seattle), I've seen firsthand, without choosing a side, that patriotism and apologism has very much become an American Right wing position, while those on the left are increasingly ashamed of the American flag. Particularly since the election of Trump.
Agreed that it would be better if it did not take soldiers standing outside of schools to protect the Jewish community but at the same time doing nothing wasn't an option and there has - as far as I know - so far not been any harm to bystanders on their behalf.
That's simply because the press and academia in the USA are extremely biased towards one political side.
Most of the people who think the current political or social state of the USA is horrible have never opened a single book about asian, african or eastern europe policies.
While everyone is formatted to be shocked by what is going on in the USA, they refuse to even see that torture (including citizens) and hardcorde censorship is routine and legal in a lot of asian countries.
Most Americans have had an expectation of American Exceptionalism.
To quote John F Kennedy:
“I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arabella (sic) three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier. "We must always consider", he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us". Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill—constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”
>Singaporean citizens of Chinese heritage tend to enjoy preferred treatment over their Malay and Indian counterparts. Examples of overt discrimination include employment ads specifying that someone must be of Chinese origin to apply.
Not to defend this, but I expect to see this among smaller employers in US tech hubs in the future.
Anecdotally, I know two PRC nationals who spent two years in Singapore working for employers that discriminated. They had nothing but bad things to say about their workplaces when it came to code quality, leadership, and how women were treated (both of them are female).
I know it's a sample size of two, but it makes me think that you wouldn't want to work for an employer that favors Chinese applicants as anything but a last resort.
Keep in mind that these companies are often fulfilling three things simultaneously: allowing a PRC national to gain citizenship in another country through an avenue that involves significant financial investment, laundering/protecting RMB (often the same thing in China), and, finally, functioning as what most of us consider a viable business (turning money into more money). These are listed in order of prioritization.
It's ok if the business fails completely and never turns a profit, as long as the first priority is accomplished. Accomplishing the first and second is ideal. Ending up with a viable business and a financial return on your initial investment is just a nice-to-have.
Every country has its own issue but for most people those issue above would not affect their life. I'm neither LGBT nor interested in politics so these are not that relevant so I would rank living in Singapore highly above USA. Perfect blend of eastern and western culture/life.
I guess I could see Singapore for the quality of life if I was non LGBT or not of a race that might face issues but as other people mentioned below there are a few issues about Singapore that would also make me not rank it highly. That said, I'm an American who left the US some years ago and lived in Berlin/Tallinn and worked remote around a lot of Europe. For sure quality of life is generally better in Europe in my opinion and I can understand why lots of people are choosing say Paris or London (Brexit aside) rather than SF. Except for people in Eastern Europe almost all Europeans also wonder why people want to live in the U.S. - my common response is that I would go to the U.S. if I wanted to compete to be in the .01% elite and be able to reap the unrestricted gains of such. If I didn't have a burning desire to try to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, go to Harvard, start the next Google and instead just wanted to live a "normal" life with work/life balance then I would prefer to live in Europe
Former European here. I came to the US for grad school, then went back home to Europe and I could not wait to return to the US. I still love Europe for the culture, history and food but the US has nature, limitless opportunity, optimism, dynamism and in general a sense of abundance, self-reliance freedom and space that I do not feel in Europe.
I'm an immigrant to the USA from a different western country and I think the US media is just further along in creating clickbait than most other western countries. Part of that is likely because unlike many western countries the USA does not have a major government-funded media outlet.
The stories in the media are always tilted towards outrage, fear, or hate because those base emotions are what drive clicks. The reality on the ground is much different. I often travel for work so I spend time in lots of different major US cities, they are clean, have low crime, and American's are generally very friendly.
Granted I don't travel to the worst parts of major US cities, but I've travelled enough places in the world to know that in some cities all the parts are dangerous, and we're a long way from that.
It's very difficult to stay a benevolent superpower forever. Very few countries have done it for long. Most superpowers end up being ruled by corrupt totalitarian regimes if you look at historical examples.
Not sure what made USA change for the worse or if it has just been a slow decline.
I don't disagree that Trump created a much worse environment for attracting talent from the visa process to general perception of the US but I think quite a few issues that make people hesitate about trying to move to the US came before him. I'm thinking about the difficulty of navigating most areas without owning a car, issues with healthcare, gun control, etc.
Actually it is not a democracy, nor was it ever designed to be one. Many people did allow themselves to be used though. It is pretty amazing how well propaganda works. I try to do periodic self checks, and I am still pretty sure that I have some mistaken beliefs that wormed their way into my head by stealth and/or repetition.
People are so in love with the idea of America failing that they can't see the reality of how the world has becoming progressively more depended upon it.
I'm not entirely sure why the US was seen as a "peace keeper". It was at war pretty much non-stop since WW2, wasting trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in the process, and now that Trump is shutting this shit down people are coming out of the woodwork and say we should be the "peace keeper" and continue bombing other people forever. Oh, and we better do it on our own dime, too.
Very true. Many countries are on their way to developing entire industries around tech. This was previously only exclusive to US, maybe Japan.
Some of those countries are attracting previously unheard-of talent and subsequent funding from the US. It's hard to imagine how future US startups can ever compete.
By tech do you mean “consumer-facing software products”? For if you mean technology in its broader sense, I assure you many countries have and are built around it.
From what I've seen and heard from afar, US is a pretty expensive and stressful place to be in. In fact, I wouldn't want me going there because I'm a pretty conservative guy myself and I think everyone should stay in their own country instead of crowding places where opportunity presents itself. Grass is always greener on the other side, so I'd rather chill at my home country and do remote work.
Why should money and effort be expended to, in particular, keep top AI talent in the USA? "AI" is just a name and in most usage today means "machine learning" and especially "deep learning". Neither GOFAI nor machine learning are even halfway steps toward useful true artificial intelligence. Do not mistake a name ("AI") for the real thing (artificial intelligence).
Meanwhile there are many, many ways other than AI to spend our dollars for both research and education: healthcare, energy, climate change, a more modern military, etc.
We tend to treat the term "AI" as if the technology were already true artificial intelligence but it is little more than a set of pretty good recognition and classification algorithms. Investing billions in a teechology prematurely is always a mistake since it will divert those billions from other uses. But I see no technology remotely approaching the intelligence of a 6-year-old child even on the horizon today. Now I'm not saying that we couldn't use a zillion 6-year-olds (after all, Victorian England did so with their workhouse system) to do useful work, I'm just saying that "AI" (the poor version, not artificial intelligence) is very likely to become a financial sinkhole and cause possibly decades of lost effort if we get carried away by mistaking a term for the real thing:
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEETS NATURAL STUPIDITY
Drew McDermoH
MIT At Lab Cambridge, Mass 02139
