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

191–200 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#191

Post by jltsiren »

ibejoeb wrote: post #130
layer8 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, moving to the US is unattractive for a significant portion of the talent (not the least due to the US’ socio-cultural-political climate), and working remotely for a US company comes with its own difficulties.

There is unbridled immigration to the US. I truly can't think of a cohort for which the US is unattractive.

North/West European middle class, for example.

I'm from Finland myself, I've been living in the US for some years, and I have no concrete plans to return. I've known many Finns who have tried the same, but most of them have returned to Finland, or at least to Europe. Most of them are highly educated professionals. It turns out the difference in standard of living is not that large. For most people, living closer to family and friends is more important. If they find a decent opportunity closer to home, they usually take it.

You can see the same effect with Finnish nurses. They could improve their standard of living significantly by moving to Norway. Probably more than software engineers moving to the US. It would be easy, because Norway is close, the culture is pretty similar, and Finnish citizens have a subjective right to live and work there. But few people actually do that.

Re: AI.gov

#192

Post by theultdev »

_mitterpach wrote: post #189
theultdev wrote: post #184

Is there any other type of development where you have to inform the US gov about it when you start developing it? The EO says you must inform the gov when you start the training the AI if it's a risk to public health, etc. How would one determine if it's a risk? Who determines the risk (I assume the government). So effectively that means the gov determines what is right/wrong, true/false. Not good.

My friend, it is quite literally the goverment's job to decide what is right or wrong through drafting and enacting laws. I am not stating that having to inform the government when you're training models is right. It's an asinine way of thinking by people who have no idea what they're talking about and are severely out of touch. The laws they've enacted were based on fear, often propagated by OpenAI themselves. It is…

> My friend, it is quite literally the goverment's job to decide what is right or wrong through drafting and enacting laws.

It is not their job to say what is true or false. That's propaganda. They also do not have the right to enforce what you train your AI to say.

Would love to see the SC challenge this EO. It violates the 1A.

Re: AI.gov

#193

Post by aiisjustanif »

ajcp wrote: post #175
93po wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume they're targeting people who aren't competitive candidates for big high paying companies. There's plenty of super mediocre to bad developers out there (myself included) that would never stand a chance applying there. I've been developing software for a decade and the most I've ever made is $110k, and that was in high cost of living areas like Denver and Seattle.

Actually quite the opposite: they're specifically targeting people with FAANG and/or Ivy League pedigrees. The government can't afford these people straight up, so they slap "Presidential" or "White House" on a fellowship to make it more attractive. And it is; a Presidential or White House fellowship is as much a resume maker as working at a FAANG or an Ivy League degree.

How come? I would value a Stanford degree and working at Google on a resume. I wouldn’t know what to think about The White House or Air Force (like many posting on their site) on a resume.

Re: AI.gov

#194

Post by WD40forRust »

gumballindie wrote: post #51
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.

There will also be an increase in companies and products that safeguard your data and intellectual property against theft.

1) No cloud, everything local or site-to-site. If cloud, then encrypted entirely.

2) Not only FOSS operating system, but FOSS firmware and microcode, and the hardware completely documented and published. Maybe a 100% sales tax on retail price of, and 25 year software service assurances on, products containing ANY kind of Universal Machine which fail to meet this? (Elect me Benevolent Dictator For Life and I will make this happen!)

3) Cryptography and cybersecurity basics need to be taught in public schools, just like resumé writing.

Re: AI.gov

#195

Post by philsnow »

antisthenes wrote: post #132
HDThoreaun wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd be surprised. Plenty of people are interested in going into public service and especially policy related work. The high industry salaries can actually be a positive here, they allow workers to be FIRE'd in a decade or less. At that point they can switch to a lower stress/higher impact gov job and the salary being lower isn't a huge problem.

You won't be able to FIRE on $180k for 10 years (or less), not even close. The thing about FIRE is you actually need way more money than regular retirement, because you have to plan for a 40+year retirement instead of a 15-20 year one. On top of that you need a higher margin to account for uncertainty.

HDThoreaun is saying that it's possible to work in the private sector for a decade and save/invest enough to FIRE, especially if in your "retirement" you're also pulling in $180k/y and getting government benefits.

There's "barista FIRE" (save enough and then go work as a barista, typically at starbucks because they had unusually good benefits, but I don't know if all that has changed after the unionization), but honestly working for the government seems like it could be even lower-stress than being a barista.

Re: AI.gov

#196

Post by j45 »

jmac01 wrote: post #28
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…

So what you're saying is, government is too..... Conservative? :p Maybe we are just feeling the effects that the modern American "left" is basically just the American right of the 60s lol We need some actual liberals who aren't just socially liberal but also willing to spend money on new ideas.

I'm not sure if entirely or "too" conservative or progressive organizations or governments succeed.

Bureaucracies who can't change when needed, fail if they are stuck on constantly "conserving" at all costs, or "changing" at all costs.

There is some neat research out there that I will try to dig up on how corporate organizations actually benefit from having a balance between the "go" and the "whoa" in an organization, whether it is conservative or progressive views on something. This is not to say that those primarily obsessed with converving (keeping the world how it is, for the benefit of who is already benefitting only) may not be progressive and expand, nor does it mean that progressives aren't capable of restraint.

Making it about sides, is really, really, oversimplifying it though. It's one of the thing I think that is really polarizing when people who focus on differences more find more of them, but if you ask them, they ultimately have a different way of having the same thing in common. Maybe this is unique to the US, but it has always struck with me how people align completely binary around right or left when so many folks if they took the time to learn where they stand would probably end up closer to the centre on one side.

Fanaticsm at the extremes of any interpreted ideology is a bigger issue. Those folks can neither change their mind, nor change the topic, nor openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't theirs, but try to be open minded. It's my hope that societal progress can make inroads here because poeple do have more in common than they think.

Re: AI.gov

#197

Post by j45 »

iAMkenough wrote: post #35
jmac01 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, government is too..... Conservative? :p Maybe we are just feeling the effects that the modern American "left" is basically just the American right of the 60s lol We need some actual liberals who aren't just socially liberal but also willing to spend money on new ideas.

Trouble there is whenever spending is promised for new ideas, it becomes campaign fodder for someone to stop that spending because "taxes are too high" or whatever line gets conservative voters foaming at the mouth. It's an uphill battle to get new funding, and talking points move faster than budget approvals and program results.

Sometimes talking and consulting with people is seen as the work output too.

Re: AI.gov

#199

Post by boringg »

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…

Working for the government should be in the same ballpark but typically work at the government pays a less as there is to be the perceived benefit of social good imbedded in your salary as well as there are power considerations (in this case impacting AI policy). That and your job is generally considered to be safer than working in private interest. The incentives aren't the same.

For example judges take on their roll even though they would be paid significantly more in the private sector as lawyers.

Re: AI.gov

#200

Post by WD40forRust »

RIMR wrote: post #68
JustifyContent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>racist right winger

Then there is the suicidally-altruistic left winger.

Post reply on HN