Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI.gov

ai.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#61

Post by atestu »

elbasti wrote: post #57
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #37

On their "immigrate" page ( https://ai.gov/immigrate/ ) , they say "We must attract, train, and retain the most talented workforce in the world," and mention H-1Bs as a part of that solution. But federal law caps H-1Bs at 60,000 a year, of which over a quarter goes right to Amazon and AWS (EDIT: Turns out I'm wrong about this!). Does the government as an employer get to circumvent the cap? Or are they suggesting that…

Do you have a source for AWS employing 15K H1B holders? That's an insane number!

[dead]

Re: AI.gov

#62

Post by tsunamifury »

72mena wrote: post #48
tsunamifury wrote: post #31

So far the support of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Cisco/Akami have given the US government a business, intelligence, and social engineering platform the likes the world has never seen before, and still people today wildly undervalue its power in the world today. They have effectively deplatformed Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia, put anyone but China within second reach from a mass data coll…

> "America's global brain drain might have been the single most effective strategy" The website has a section titled "Bring your AI Skills to the U.S.", and then a button with this label "Learn about pathways to work in the U.S.". This is very encouraging. And it reminded me of Eric Schmidt's recommendation on this topic [1], which was published on the final report of the National Security Commission on Artificial In…

Yea I think it's more that Schmidt believes that AI is the force-multiplier of any existing system of power in the world today, and whatever it takes the US needs to continue to fuel it.

But he also seems to understand the labor/intelligence relationship to get there better than anyone else. I really missed him when he left Google, Sundar is a pail shadow.

Re: AI.gov

#63

Post by dr_dshiv »

jerry1979 wrote: post #42
aduffy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recoding America[1] is an excellent book about this problem, but it extends a lot further than just contractors charging inflated rates. The government itself has a culture that is so averse to trying new things and compliance with existing policy that it's actually dangerous to the careers of civil servants to do anything innovative, because that is one of the only things they can actually be fired for. The solution…

> she proposes effectively would be an expansion of the US Digital Service (which the author spearheaded) into something that approximates the British civil service This sounds like a very brave proposal.

https://18f.gsa.gov/

Here’s essentially, what exists today. Pretty impressive people.

Re: AI.gov

#64

Post by dvngnt_ »

tomohelix wrote: post #32
godelski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the jobs go up to $180k/yr. That's not too bad considering it doesn't look like it requires DC location. But others like the grad assistant for $22/hr is laughable. Still, I agree there's a problem with salaries not being competitive. I've interned at DOE labs before and lots of people don't stay for long.

I mean the grad assistant is basically a post-doc position isn't it? Considering the stability and perks from a government job, I think that is not too far from market rate. But go up and those 180k jobs would be easily 300-400K in the industry. I doubt anyone who can do that work would be interested in a measly 180K. Unless it comes with a visa...

"a measly 180k" is a wild statement on an absolute scale, but i do see what you're saying relatively.

Re: AI.gov

#65

Post by altdataseller »

empath-nirvana wrote: post #9

The US government can't legally pay the salaries required to find AI experts right now (just look at the salaries on the open positions). So all this work will end up being done by contractors who _can_ pay those salaries while the contractors skim off the top. The US really needs a special schedule for software developers if they want technical expertise in house (and they really should have technical expertise in h…

A lot of those jobs aren’t really AI/ML related too just reading the descriptions. They seem like generic software/IT positions

Re: AI.gov

#66

Post by paulddraper »

tsunamifury wrote: post #31

So far the support of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Cisco/Akami have given the US government a business, intelligence, and social engineering platform the likes the world has never seen before, and still people today wildly undervalue its power in the world today. They have effectively deplatformed Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia, put anyone but China within second reach from a mass data coll…

> America's global brain drain might have been the single most effective strategy that the planet has seen so far...

> The only question is if the rest of the world is going to wake up and counter this.

Probably not.

Simply put, there's no first-world country in the world where top talent can earn even close to a US salary, which largely due to the fact that US is relatively permissive towards large income disparities.

Other countries "fixing" that would be politically infeasible.

Re: AI.gov

#67

Post by mistrial9 »

mmedellin wrote: post #56
empath-nirvana wrote: post #9

The US government can't legally pay the salaries required to find AI experts right now (just look at the salaries on the open positions). So all this work will end up being done by contractors who _can_ pay those salaries while the contractors skim off the top. The US really needs a special schedule for software developers if they want technical expertise in house (and they really should have technical expertise in h…

This is most acutely felt in acquisitions where those responsible for deciding what to build and buy have very limited understanding of software development. The failed rollout of healthcare.gov is the billboard for this problem. There's an effort to train civilian acquisition professionals on how to buy and build better software, but they are pretty quickly hired by contractors or the commercial sector since their n…

second hand knowledge in California is - the State is large and wealthy enough to have some echoes of the actual Federal govt.. and repeated words from direct software project participants was .. that mid-level bureaucrats from the "controlling" contract originator, would spuriously and without warning change the requirements.. sometimes so much so that it would invalidate large'ish portions of completed work.. and this happened all the way into the final month of a supposedly serious deadline, with failure to perform clauses and all that, at stake.

A first-hand voice from California State software projects said - that the required prime contractor had 10+ person teams and $1m+ budget, and failed to build useful results. The final result from the project(s) more than once, was "oh oops, doesn't fit with -other framework- cannot be deployed". In other words, literally making things that are abandoned on Day 1 of deployment, for large money, with plenty of apparent pressure on "workers" to perform. etc..

Re: AI.gov

#68

Post by RIMR »

JustifyContent wrote: post #50
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resist what? What exactly is unusual about this?

Likely a right-winger who thinks immigration - even immigration of people who are talented in developing the most important technology of our time - is really bad. So they "couldn't resist" offering more immigration opportunities to people.

Look at his post history. He recently complained that LLMs are too "woke".

So yeah, 100% a racist right winger who didn't have anything of value to say, and decided to just throw shade at immigrants when he saw the opportunity.

Good news is that these guys will open their mouths at work and get themselves canned, so we usually only have to worry about them online.

Re: AI.gov

#69

Post by kjkjadksj »

tomohelix wrote: post #32
godelski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the jobs go up to $180k/yr. That's not too bad considering it doesn't look like it requires DC location. But others like the grad assistant for $22/hr is laughable. Still, I agree there's a problem with salaries not being competitive. I've interned at DOE labs before and lots of people don't stay for long.

I mean the grad assistant is basically a post-doc position isn't it? Considering the stability and perks from a government job, I think that is not too far from market rate. But go up and those 180k jobs would be easily 300-400K in the industry. I doubt anyone who can do that work would be interested in a measly 180K. Unless it comes with a visa...

The sentiment today is the idea of the post doctoral position is also exploitation. Paying PhDs to do cutting edge work for $50k a year is a joke. In n out managers probably get more than that now.

Re: AI.gov

#70

Post by swalsh »

clbrmbr wrote: post #18

I predict the rise of anti-technology cults as the moral panic over AI and “Social” takes hold. The millions of displaced workers and disillusioned social-users will need refuge.

I believe we're witnessing a political realignment, and anti-technology sentiments play a significant role in the evolving left/right ideologies. There's something I term the "new right," which is distinctly different from the "alt-right." The new right leans more libertarian and has a younger demographic.

This group values individual liberty in financial matters (e.g., cryptocurrency), individual liberty in computing (e.g., AI), and individual liberty in manufacturing and firearms (e.g., 3D printers and semi-automatic guns). Interestingly, they also advocate for transparency regarding extraterrestrial life. It's an unusual stance, but it's part of their ideology. Of course many prominant democrats have led the charge on this, so it's probably not as cut and dry like the others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they were skeptical of mainstream narratives, but their views were diverse; they weren't strictly anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine, anti-mask, or pro-mask. They harbored various opinions, but universally believed that the experts' confidence was misplaced.

In contrast, the opposing side seems to advocate for stringent regulations on AI, cryptocurrency, and firearms. They seldom discuss extraterrestrials, primarily because they view themselves as experts, and in their eyes, the existence of aliens is implausible.

The "new moderate" recognizes the potential of AI to cause widespread unemployment but also understands its immense value. They believe that a balance must be struck. The new moderate acknowledges the benefits of cryptocurrency, especially in regions lacking a stable banking system, and the potential of smart contracts. However, they also recognize its misuse by terrorists and its frequent use in schemes that prey on uninformed investors. They believe that compromise is essential, and some form of regulation is inevitable.

Post reply on HN