Remix.run Logo
linotype 2 days ago

[flagged]

neitherboosh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Hm, this comment makes me realize that there isn’t really a social consensus on whether or not AI generated content is welcome in these kinds of discussions. On one hand, I’m generally annoyed any time I see unsolicited AI generations because it’s usually garbage and I could have just asked an AI myself. But in this case I probably wasn’t going to and this comment is genuinely insightful…

I guess I would have preferred some kind of qualifier at the beginning saying it’s not written by a human

julienchastang 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I also agree that this comment is likely AI generated (i.e., "why this matters" gave it away for me. I think I've seen this phrase a lot with ChatGPT). I think it is the last part of the last sentence and the toeing of the party line that bugs me, "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system". It's "Manufacturing Consent"[0] à la 21st Century.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

linotype 2 days ago | parent [-]

Again, please point out what’s wrong in the post and I will correct it.

julienchastang 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

"likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system"

This is an opinion. Is it yours, or the AI's? Moreover, is the AI just trying to be agreeable or is this coming from a platform that has a political agenda, in this case supporting the political actors that are in charge of this visa change? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves in these modern times.

CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As jeffbee says, most HN users are perfectly capable of using ChatGPT as well.

umvi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah kind of like how people put "IANAL but ..." before offering legal advice. Maybe we need a new acronym: "AIG but ..." (AI generated but ...) or maybe "NEWAI but ..." (Non-expert wielding AI but...)

linotype 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you point out what part of the summary is wrong? You’re welcome to write your own summary that’s as detailed as the one I posted with any necessary corrections and I’ll delete my post.

shaldengeki 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

HN's moderation team has been pretty clear that generated comments aren't welcome here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

linotype 2 days ago | parent [-]

They’re free to delete it. I think it adds value.

tomhow a day ago | parent [-]

We don't delete things that users have posted (unless they specifically ask us to).

It's long been a norm on HN that summary/tl;dr comments are not welcome. We want people's comments to be in response to the full article, not the summary. Sometimes a summary will be an inaccurate representation of the article, and when users base their response on the summary (without reading the article), it poisons the comments thread.

You weren't to know as it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it is one of the norms that the moderation team and community has converged on over many years.

neitherboosh 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I actually don’t think the summary is bad and I do think the comment is helpful and am glad to have read it; I just would have preferred to know it was AI before I started reading.

jeffbee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> isn’t really a social consensus

I feel the consensus is clear. Reposting blurbs from robots is anathematic to our discourse.

linotype 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your comment adds way less value than the one I generated, reviewed and posted. I refuse to be bullied by people that are anti-AI.

jeffbee 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your comment added nothing, because anyone can get ChatGPT to generate that exact comment.

linotype 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was convenience so dozens or hundreds of people didn’t have to. Seriously regret trying to be helpful here.

baggy_trough 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Now we don't have to.

baggy_trough 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Be careful not to define consensus by whatever you think is a good idea.

stickfigure 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess I am curious about this "visa shopping" problem - is it really a big deal? And if it is, how hard is it going to be for a motivated applicant to establish "proof of residence" in an arbitrary country? Are we talking about a utility bill?

Is this just going to derail world travelers who want to add a last minute US leg to their itinerary? That would seem entirely pointless.

Honestly I'm pretty confused.

benoau 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I bet it's a minuscule amount. For a start, all they're shopping for is a shorter delay for the visa interview - maybe that is 1 month instead of 3 - and most people from countries that require visas will already be factoring that duration into their plans.

> how hard is it going to be for a motivated applicant to establish "proof of residence" in an arbitrary country

By residence they mean your legal status is a permanent resident, this is proven with a formal ID like green cards.

throw-the-towel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For us in the third world it is! As an example, in my country of residence, a non-national needs to wait more than a year to even get to an interview with a US consul.

viceconsole 2 days ago | parent [-]

Year or longer waits for B visas are common in India. Part of the problem is the statutory requirement that first-time applicants need an in-person interview. When I worked in a US consulate in India, we would have loved to have lowered the age at which we could waive interviews from 80 to 70 or even 65, but that would have required action in DC. We also would have loved to have had more staff, but were limited by the amount of diplomatic positions the Indian government would approve.

amluto 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This effectively ends “visa shopping” - the practice of applying at embassies with shorter wait times or perceived easier approval rates. It also prevents circumventing countries where the US has suspended visa operations. Exceptions remain for diplomatic visas, UN-related travel, and emergency/humanitarian cases.

Let’s give this a computer analogy. Suppose I run a multi-datacenter service, and I have an endpoint in Europe and an endpoint in Asia. I accept requests for any account at any endpoint, and I discover that I have faster response latency and fewer 500 errors at the European endpoint than the Asia endpoint. Some of my Asian users have started using the European endpoint. Do I:

(a) Decide that this is just fine — the users are load balancing for me?

(b) Fix my system so that I treat requests fairly regardless of which endpoint they hit and maybe add front ends so that the front end isn’t a bottleneck?

(c) Start unconditionally rejecting requests if the account isn’t in the endpoint’s region? Or maybe even require the account and the originating IP to be in the endpoint’s region.

—-

(a) is a bit lazy but could work fine in the context of the Internet if I can encourage clients to load balance in an intelligent manner. It’s pretty obnoxious if the clients need to get on an actual airplane (and make visa-related API calls to do so!) to switch endpoints.

(b) seems ideal. If my system is weak I should fix it.

(c) seems unbelievably inappropriate to me.

Now let’s consider real life. There’s some actual human being, not a phone app. They’ve just finished a PhD in the US, and they have actual friends. They want to get a job in the US where they will benefit the US economy. And their desire is even compatible with US immigration rules. Except that they’re from Asia. Should the US:

1. Let them apply from within the US and let them stay here while applying (which should be fast — why is there a queue anyway? Either they should be accepted or rejected, but we benefit no one by making it slow). Then they are still around their US friends and they’re more likely to stay.

2. Require them to go visit Canada or something similar to apply? Seems pretty silly, but at least they’ll likely either end up benefitting the US or Canadian economy.

3. Require them to go back to Asia, where they have no apartment and will possibly need a job before their visa application can finish processing, and let the rather growth-oriented Chinese system try to give them an offer that gets them to stay, fairly happily, in China?

Even putting aside that choosing (c) and (3) is kind of inhumane to make someone leave all home for a few months if they are indeed eligible for a visa to stay, this seems UTTERLY STUPID as a matter of US policy. Why on Earth do we think it’s reasonable for the embassy’s local waiting time and acceptance rate to be a relevant part of our policy for who ends up getting a visa?

And yes, I know people who came to the US, got PhDs (and even brought the money to pay for them here with them), and then started companies abroad because of US visa rules.

viceconsole 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you want a real answer, a big part of it has to do with consular non-reviewability. Basically, there is far less ability for an applicant to make legal challenges to visa decisions made by a US visa officer outside the US.

Another reason is, what happens if you apply for a renewal or different visa type while you're in the US, and your visa is denied? Now we're relying on you to leave the country, whereas if you already had to leave the country to apply and you're denied, you're not still in the US.

There actually was a pilot program for domestic revalidation of H-1Bs. Applicants liked it (no need for a trip outside the US), and those of us working in India liked it (less workload for us). However I doubt this administration will support expansion.

In my experience most renewing H-1Bs planned their visa interviews (or often "dropbox" cases where they didn't even need to come in person) to coincide during a few weeks trip home. They were not generally coming to India, then applying and waiting several months.

The cases that take months are those with some problem - missing some documentation, evidence of petitioner fraud, national security concerns with the applicant, etc. And yes, in those cases people (and sometimes their families) end up getting "stuck" outside the US, kids miss the start of the school year, people can't get back to their apartments and houses and pets. It sucks, but we have vetting for good reasons.

fallpeak 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Now do the comparison if one endpoint is realtime user facing traffic and the other is batch processing which can easily eat up all available capacity and drive up latency.

If visa shoppers are overwhelming the normal processing of applicants who actually live in a particular country, it seems entirely appropriate to say "no, sorry, this location isn't for you" to the people who don't live there.

amluto 2 days ago | parent [-]

How about hiring more people? For that matter, why is the decision made in the local consulate or embassy anyway?

The whole worldwide visa system feels like a relic of the time before networks. Many tasks rely on physically moving pieces of paper around, leaving your passport with agents of a foreign government (!), and having documents that are stamped and supposedly authenticated. Shouldn’t everyone be able to separate the tasks of authenticating a person and authorizing that person to be somewhere?

Simulacra 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I lament that there is tightening, but I wonder how prevalent visa shopping was. Wouldn't we want to close that loophole? It seems it would only be something that would benefit the wealthy.

linotype 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This _is_ them closing the loophole.

throw-the-towel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well duh, you already have to be wealthy to get a US visa in the first place.

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
tw04 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

blindfolded_go 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What part of the bill mentions anything about skin color? As far as I can tell, the rules are the same for everyone.

chizhik-pyzhik 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it looks AI generated

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
linotype 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Security screening, not border control at airports etc.

deadbabe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate this “brown people” line that people keep bringing up to shame anyone who is against easy immigration as some kind of racist.

Unchecked immigration has wrecked countries, it’s a big problem in Canada for instance. We have definitely passed the era in the world where immigration was automatically a good thing. The game has changed.

linotype 2 days ago | parent [-]

How has immigration ruined Canada?

2 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]