Asking for someone else: is the NIW category still backlogged? If the goal is to get a green card within the STEM-OPT extension timeline of 2 years, for someone who has very high achievements that fit either NIW or EB1A categories, which of these is likely a better option? I'm hearing some rumors that NIW can happen faster these days.
The NIW (EB2) category is still backlogged and the standard as applied by USCIS has changed significantly and I would argue now isn't much easier than the EB1A, which used to be one of the reasons to pursue an NIW. With the changing standard and the worsening backlogs, the EB1A is the much better option, although a higher standard, and probably worth aggressively pursuing.
I think it's partly because we all just have way too much to do. Every day. All day. And the harder you work, it seems the more you have to do. On top of cognitive processing of all the ambient events in our time, which is a heavy load just by itself.
Most of the time, AI tools promise to be timesavers. So it's natural many folks look for shortcuts. We're simply overloaded, partly due to current situations generated by existing machine learning tools deployed elsewhere in the system.
Nothing is ever ideal, but centuries of labor laws gets us in the right direction. A 4 day workweek would do wonders while still having plenty of work to be done.
Your statement is also why I fear this supposed promise that "AI will do all the work, society won't need jobs!". I don't think we're getting this post-work utopia that tecunocrats love to promise.
I didn't use it much growing up since they moved west when I was young. but it turns out that "y'all" is surprisingly nifty: a gender neutral, 2nd person pronoun for a group of peope. So I picked it up more in adulthood and put it into my daily vernacular.
It's a term commonly used in some of the "Southern" US states.
And also by Indian Christians (Catholics) in some parts of India, such as Mumbai and nearby areas, like Pune and Goa, along or near the Western coast of India. Partly grew up there, and also did some of my schooling there, that's how I know this.
I don't know if there is any historical connection between the usage of that phrase (y'all) in those two areas (of the US and India).
It could have been, via (US) Christian missionaries coming here. There were and still are some of them, in some parts of India, from more than 100 years ago. Again, I know this from experience.
That general area of India, and some other parts, do have a relatively high percentage of Christians.
Wish the UK would have their version of the SBIR/STTR program too -- and open to all, not just Oxbridge and other elites. Mandatory small business set-asides, especially for large defense procurement, has outsized effects on innovation.
Are marriage-based green card applications still being processed at some pace when the petitioner's spouse is also a green card holder? I hear these days this category is ultra slow with no option to expedite.
This is the intention of tech transfer. To have private-sector entities commercialize the R&D.
What is the alternative? National labs and universities can't commercialize in the same way, including due to legal restrictions at the state and sometimes federal level.
As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent -- and not concentrated in say OpenAI or with underhanded kickbacks to government -- commercialization will benefit productive applications of AI. All the software we're using right now to communicate sits on top of previous, successful, federally-funded tech transfer efforts which were then commercialized. This is how the system works, how we got to this level.
> As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent
I think that's the crux of the guy you're responding to's point. He does not believe it will be done fairly and transparently, because these AI corporations will have broad control over the technology.
If so, yes indeed, fair point by him/her. It's up to ordinary folks like us to push against unfair tech transfer because yes, federal labs and research institutions would otherwise provide the incumbents an extreme advantage.
Having been in this world though, I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs with companies at any level of scale. From startup to OpenAI to defense primes, they're open to all. So part of the challenge here is simply engaging capable entrepreneurs to go license tech from federal labs, and go create competitors for the greedy VC-funded or defense prime incumbents.
> I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs
My reluctance is when we talk about fraud, waste, and corruptions in government, this is where it happens.
The DoD's budget isn't $1T because they are spending $900B on the troops. It's $1T because $900B of that ends up in the hands of the likes of Lockhead martin and Raytheon to build equipment we don't need.
I frankly do not trust "entrepreneurs" to not be greedy pigs willing to 100x the cost of anything and everything. There are nearly no checks in place to stop that from happening.
Not that it fully takes away from your argument but a lot of that high price tag is also due to requiring much better controls on material to prevent supply chain attacks ala getting beepers with explosives in the hands of all your leadership
Yet that's the exact opposite of what's been done with something like the F-35[1], with widely distributed production, typically among countries seen as US allies (at least prior to this year), but with key components still made in China.[2] And the problem is even worse in the larger defense industry.[3] Americans pay an immense premium for a military-industrial complex where the PR is largely divorced from reality; for example the USS Gerald R. Ford, commissioned in 2017 still isn't combat ready.[4]
All the more reason to bring such initiatives inhouse and not outsource them.
You can hope that a defense company is doing the right things in terms of supply chain attacks, but that's a pretty lucrative corner to cut. They'd not even need to cut it all the time to reap benefits.
The only other alternative is frequent audits of the defense company which is expensive and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.
Reasonably there should be a two way exchange? It might be okay for companies to piggyback on research funds if that also means that more research insight enters public knowledge.
I’d be happy if they just paid their fair share of tax and stopped acting like they were self-made when they really just piggybacked on public funds and research.
There’s zero acknowledgment or appreciation of public infra and research.
What do you mean universities can't commercialize in the same way (I may have misunderstood what you meant)? Due to Bayh-Dole, Universities can patent and license the tech they develop under contract for the government- often helping professors start up companies with funding, while simultaneously charging those companies to license the tech. This is also true for National labs run by universities (Berkeley and a few others). the other labs run under contract by external for-profit companies.
If this were just about tech transfer, in which private firms commercialize public research, I agree. But that's not what Jason Pruet is saying. In the Q&A he notes:
> “Why don’t we just let private industry build these giant engines for progress and science, and we’ll all reap the benefits?” The problem is that if we’re not careful, it could lead us to a very different country than the one we’ve been in.
This isn't about commercialization, it's about control. When access to frontier models and SOTA compute is gated by private interests, academics (and the public) risk getting locked out. Not because of merit, but because their work doesn't align with corporate priorities.
Yes indeed, what a travesty. :) Or they may study misinformation, another affront to civilization itself, because of course we know exactly how it works in this ultra-fast AI era with several competing superpowers.
You are typing this with software built on top of an incredibly vast technology stack which simply would not exist without federal R&D funding. May be worth remembering this fact. In the next few hours, you will almost certainly use non-digital technology essential to life which simply did not originate from commercial R&D (such as it is).
The beginning is nearly always federal R&D funding. Much of it won't work, sure, and that's fine. It's not wasted, because when it works, it creates such a massive everlasting surplus and opportunity machine that it overcomes all past failures by orders of magnitude. Such as, computers, and all they enabled over the last 100-ish years.
The myth of the lone inventor in the garage should have been updated even in the pre-WW2 era.
When it's VCs investing private money, on a high risk, high return (to private individuals) that's celebrated. The recipients (aka founders) will mostly lose that "grant" money, and end up with nothing to show for it. Of course the winners produce massive economic gains to the general public.
Alas when the govt follows the exact same model, taking high risk, high reward bets, then it's seen as "wasteful spending". Despite the staggering value of the wins, it becomes better to "spend nothing" than waste a penny on research that goes nowhere.
The levels of cognitive dissonance, not to mention hypocrisy, are truly incredible.
And the charge is being lead by someone who literally made his wealth from this model.
DoD Office of Strategic Capital is high risk, the kind of risk no investors would fund.
Investors scrutinize pitch decks and then do hard company due diligence which frequently falls through. And conversations die-off with no obligation to provide feedback, unlike in government. And investors will not fund true R&D. They fund scale.
None of these agencies fund high-risk grants. I don't think there is such a thing. What you're talking about is the difficult-to-quantify relationship between a define advance in knowledge, and possible commercial applications.
"In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards."
I wonder if doge is using ML systems to do this kind of review in a far more centralized way across all of government. With the kind of data they have -- obtained by extra-legal means, a.k.a. theft -- they could exert a lot of control over crucial funding decisions.
The system is a Wild West almost by design. It evolved to prevent misuse. Not perfect, but hard to control quickly by a single authority. To me it seems doge is doing a centralization play so it can implement any directive from the great technoking.
Absolutely. One of the points of Trump's consolidation of power is to make people reliant on his office to succeed. Funding will only come after loyalty is demonstrated. We've seen this already with cabinet appointments, the trade war, etc.
Sounds like a bribe machine / patronage machine, you gotta grease the wheels across a whole range of people.
And the odds they have some actual expertise? I'm not holding my breath, there's no indication that domain knowledge or such is relevant to Trump team members jobs... quite the opposite.
After "attention", definitely. :) In broad strokes, the US excels in looking to the future, but compared to e.g. Europe, it's harder for folks to get interested in history.
Not sure why you're being downvoted because your points are accurate. Ultra nationalist propaganda wouldn't sell well internationally compared to e.g. Star Wars.
And the current administration does at least purport to follow free market principles. It's just all principles can go out the window for them because <insert word salad>, for whatever advances their own power.
Asking for someone else: is the NIW category still backlogged? If the goal is to get a green card within the STEM-OPT extension timeline of 2 years, for someone who has very high achievements that fit either NIW or EB1A categories, which of these is likely a better option? I'm hearing some rumors that NIW can happen faster these days.
Thanks!
reply