Are they fundamentally different? Couldn’t you make the argument that it’s advanced from a probabilistic determination of the most likely next token, to a probabilistic determination of the next token AND a probabilistic determination of the inflection that that token should be transmitted with? How is one any more or less fake than the other?
I believe the issue is "emotion" and "emotional tone" are not the same thing, in the same way that "humor" and "written joke" aren't the same thing. You can convey emotional tones without having the emotion (that's what I meant by "fake emotion"), just like you can tell a joke without understanding the punchline.
So basically you want to extend the luck/financial privilege that those people have had to be able to study in the US to extend to additional advantages for future visa applications. Not sure that I’d clasify that as fair, personally. As you mentioned, they already get multiple chances at a H1-B already.
Side note: my understanding is that there’s already a secondary lottery for people who hold a US masters (the advanced degree petition). If you are not selected in the first lottery, and you meet that condition, you get placed in a second lottery which has much better odds as there are far less people who meet this criteria (it also makes up almost 25% of the total H1-Bs granted). So basically each year you have 2 chances, and there are better odds for one of those chances.
> So basically you want to extend the luck/financial privilege that those people have had to be able to study in the US to extend to additional advantages for future visa applications. Not sure that I’d clasify that as fair, personally.
It's not fair to uproot someone from a life they've already established, just to give someone else a chance.
Also, this is a US policy meant to serve US goals. Absolute fairness to some overseas person is not the point. It makes sense to favor an existing immigrant over a potential immigrant in similar way as it makes sense to favor a citizen over an immigrant.
The problem with your plan is that it essentially grants the ability to determine which people get to immigrate to the admissions committee of private colleges.
If you propose that you have to defend it on policy grounds. I don’t like that idea at all, that decision is the function of a democratically elected government.
> The problem with your plan is that it essentially grants the ability to determine which people get to immigrate to the admissions committee of private colleges.
Who said anything about "admissions committee of private colleges"? 99% of the immigrant college grads I've known went to public colleges, most of which were not particularly selective.
And even if "admissions committee of private colleges" were given that exclusive power, that sounds a lot better to me than the mindless operation of an unjust lottery.
IMHO, all OPT visa holders should be given first dibs on H1-Bs, in front of the likes of HCL and Google bringing new people in.
> And even if "admissions committee of private colleges" were given that exclusive power, that sounds a lot better to me than the mindless operation of an unjust lottery.
It's not. A lottery is infinitely more fair than letting an unelected and unaccountable group of people on a college campus decide basic questions like who does and does not get to become long term members of our country's society.
H1-B visas are non-immigrant visas so anybody coming in on one knows it's finite then they need to leave after the fact (assuming they don't change status).
On paper it's finite, but in practise everyone on H1-B applies for green card asap to get the I-140 approved, and then the H1-B is not finite, you are cap exempt for extensions until your I-485 comes through
And the people on OPT (Optional Practical Training) have F "student" visas, which required them to prove that they needed to get education in the US in order to use it in their home country and have no intention on staying in the US after finishing the education least "building a life" there. Supported by evidence of strong ties to the home country, stated under penalty of perjury.
> H1-B visas are non-immigrant visas so anybody coming in on one knows it's finite then they need to leave after the fact (assuming they don't change status).
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to the question, unless you're being unreasonably legalistic.
Also, I've known only one person in my career who came to the US on temporary visa who intended to leave. Everyone else's ultimate goal was a green card.
I know quite a few, and there was a time where almost everyone I interacted with was an immigrant with an H1-B or OPT, though I think all of them did go to school in the US and got hired as full-time employees through the same process Americans would go through.
I also know immigrants who left after a few years, but only one had planned/wanted to do so from the start (and that's just because he didn't want to bother the uncertainty of trying for an H1-B).
You are the owner of a house and you have a tenant person X, that's living in that house. You let person X to live in your house. They in turn, paid you the rent regularly, took care of your house, and never gave you any reason to complain. Personally, person X built a garden in the backyard, got a dog, got married while living in that house and now live with their partner and 3 other kids that go to school, have friends and consider your house to be their house.
You were fair though. You were very clear to person X at the very beginning that at the end of every year, you will put them in a lottery system where the winning odds are 1 in six, and the other 5 people you are pitting them against can potentially replace them from your house. And if they don't win for three consecutive years, you will throw them out and get a new person, person Y that won the lottery to live in your house for 6 years. But you don't know anything about person Y, i.e. if they will pay you the rent, if they will take care of your house. But you are completely fine with it.
You were clear to them so it's not your fault. They should have been more careful about getting that dog or getting married because they knew there is a rather high chance that they would be kicked out. But they are dumb and they did it either ways. So its them not you.
However, if you put yourself in person X's perspective, you were doing everything right. You were a great tenant, you were paying rent, taking care of the house, and even got attached to the house, knowing fully that there was a high chance of you being kicked out.
To me what you're saying sounds like slavery. Those immigrants are also humans, just like you, who may fall in love. If they lived 5/7 years in the US (for example, they did a PhD) and met someone and fell in love, it is inhuman and very stupid to me to expect them to think about it and possibly reject the love and the relationship just because they might loose their visa in the future. Imagine telling someone I can't be with you because I might not have a visa in 3 years from now and be kicked out of the country!!!
An immigrant has the right to live a life with dignity and not be deprived from human experience and oppressed and exploited just to have a chance to stay in the country and get a visa. What's shocking to me is that you think such a person is stupid!! Are you okay?
I went to a rural high school where 20% of the “senior” class every year was Chinese exchange students, a large portion of them continued to study in the US for their post-secondary education, exactly 1 of all the people I spoke to has a parent who is even an active member within the party and he is a mid level bureaucrat in a no-name city. It’s not nearly as common as you seem to believe. Many people go into debt to study in America, with their family’s homes used as collateral (which was the case for multiple students I met in college from India).
> most of the students who pay these high tutution fees are sons and daughters of corrupt.
While there's some of that, at least in regards to China, I don't think that's broadly true. Chinese families are prodigious savers and value education very highly. Middle class households can pay those high tuition fees for their only child.
In my experience most folks either use their parents' savings or take bank loans. Sample size in the dozens. Stop generalizing this unsubstantiated crap.
