It involves one life, drawn at random, from human history. I can't imagine how you could miss that if you read it.
But I am realizing that AI writing is so offensive to many people that if they get that vibe, they just won't read it, and therefore won't have any idea what is being attempted. Maybe there could be a context where that wouldn't be the case, but HN is probably not it.
I read it all, and the central theme seemed to be more about collecting random thoughts/memories rather than "lives", with a final twist about the apocalypse or something like that.
You really need to stretch quite a bit to find similarities between this post and this short story.
And since you incorrectly assumed that I didn't read it, I'll give you more unsolicited feedback. Yes the writing is horrendous, but the idea itself is not novel or thought provoking. The general idea has been done many times in the classics like Dick, Asimov, Chiang and others. And the twist at the end ("Oh my god! They couldn't see things in the future because there is no future!!!!!") is immediately predictable when they can't get samples in the future.
That being said, keep writing and enjoying yourself but 1) try to dial down on the AI assist, it really makes for a poor experience for the reader, 2) don't get on your high horse when someone points it out.
>And if your thought is that 16 year olds don't have the education yet to understand the implications of something so big, I'd say they're much better informed than most people over 60 who are consuming Facebook AI slop and believing it wholesale.
So the US is being very selfless here and deciding that all these "exceptional" migrants should instead improve their own country. Pretty noble of the US if you ask me.
I love comments about "my country" who never identify it so you can't look it up to really understand what their "wonderful policies" are...
Stopping immigration is a priority yes. A job would contribute equal taxes if a current permanent resident was doing it. Unemployment is an issue, there is no need for more immigration.
I won't dox myself. If I ever need to visit US there is always a chance for your paramilitary police to take my phone and find anything and make an excuse. I am not here to defend something is better, I am saying it is different. Note that I never said I agree with the policy, I am saying it exists and why.
From your comment you see people as tools for work supplementation. Immigrants are also a peace tool. They help establishing short and long term associations with other countries and spread cultures both ways.
There are reasons to think this is the main reason why immigrants are being attacked.
I don't know if it is true but it could make sense.
"dox yourself" by saying which country you live in? Dude, you're funny.
Yes immigrants are a tool. Immigration is a tool for countries to fulfill their interests. If a country needs carpenter, targeted immigration is a way to get carpenters while internal policies kick in to compensate for the gap (e.g. promote the specific trade).
Spreading culture is stupid. Successful countries nowadays are the most culturally/racially homogenous. The whole "diversity is a strength" is just a religious mantra that has been disproven by empirical data for decades now.
The smartest and most talented can still come, there are specific visas and pathways for them.
Also, let's not be as childish as assuming that policies that were good 100+ years ago for a country should be good ad vitam eternam. Countries change, their interests change, therefore their policies should change accordingly.
> Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better.
Did you write this with a straight face? Companies want candidates that are good enough for the lowest possible price.
Yes, US citizens are more entitled to be employed for US based jobs than importing someone from a different country to do the job. If Google wants an office in Zurich then Swiss candidates there should be more entitled instead of asking Switzerland to import foreign workers to fill the positions.
Big tech companies aren't patriotic, they work for their shareholders. They don't care about US or Swiss citizens. They'll open offices wherever there's a high density of talents, and where they can import qualified foreign workers. I'm pretty sure there aren't many SWEs from Switzerland at Google Zurich offices. If the US wants to restrict visas, automatically a portion of these jobs will be moved abroad.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make now. Companies are free to open an office wherever as long as 1) they hire local talent over immigrants 2) they are willing to deal with whatever policies countries put in place to "fight" offshoring.
A company can decide to open an office in India where there is cheap talent as long as they pay the taxes put in place by US/EU governments to prevent offshoring. That's the game.
Maybe try to express yourself a bit more clearly, because once again, I have no clue what your point is now.
My point is that US can restrict visa all they want, it won't prevent companies to move somewhere else where they can get better talent and/or cheaper labour. So all this whining about H1B taking the jobs Americans feel entitled to is a bit misplaced - because this is all this discussion is about. It's all the more ironic when it comes from conservatives who claim to promote free market, globalization and meritocracy.
Now local talent over immigrants, each country has different policy, and it certainly affects where companies decide to open foreign offices. For instance, would OpenAI open an office in London if all they can hire are British citizens?
And OMG, you need to edit the AI slop way way more. This is unreadable.
reply