>As an attorney, I feel like vetting AI output takes longer than just doing it from scratch, let alone versus just using a traditional form.
This is my issue with AI.
In the type of work i do the work needs to be precise down to the context of how individual words are used.
Having AI pump out 20 pages of content but then me having to go through the 20 pages word by word, cross checking references and prior statements is going to take a long time.
Not to mention I didn’t write it, so my brain doesn’t already know what’s been written so it takes several passes to confirm its complete and that it all fits together.
I find it easy to just write it myself use AI for the more menial tasks like logic check, completeness checks, etc.
One task AI was very useful in was where we wanted to understand the gaps in a submission relative to a process requirement document. We didn’t care if the output was 100% complete or perfect, we just wanted a few examples.
Being able to input a couple 300 pages documents and have AI spit out a dozen examples in 30 seconds was a huge time saver.
While true, pilots aren’t trained to just “respond to the alarm” they are trained to fly the plane.
Once there were multiple alarms that made no sense at all (petty early in the event), the pilots should have ignored them as per the checklist.
But the most damning thing is the one pilot pulling the stick back and holding it back for almost the entire event. There aren’t any flying conditions where that’s an appropriate input. Not to mention being told to give up control and ignoring that request.
I agree Airbus has some blame in terms of the computer system not adequately communicating when it drops out of normal mode.
Yeah the computer is never flying the plane it is always the pilots who have final decision. Which is ofcourse also why the computer will let you fly into a mountain if you want.
I stand corrected. But suffice to say it’s not an appropriate input when you lose airspeed at 35,000 ft.
I read the Admiral Cloudberg article again and saw that it was procedure for other scenarios as well.
It seem like the normal mode (protected flight envelope) is just encouraging bad habits? “Just go full stick back and hold it, don’t worry the computer won’t let you stall the plane…most of the time”
> It seem like the normal mode (protected flight envelope) is just encouraging bad habits?
Maybe, but at the same time it helps avoiding crashes like Sriwijaya 182 or Flydubai 981. Airbus has shown that planes with fly-by-wire and any kind of flight envelope protection (A320 and newer, A220, B777 and 787, etc.) experience less fatal accidents and less hull losses than planes with traditional controls (A300, A310, B737, etc.), even today: https://accidentstats.airbus.com/fatal-accidents/
Unfortunately, these safety improvements mean that we only hear about cases where automation fail to help, like in the case of AF447, but not cases where it prevented an accident.
If you read the actual policy (it’s on the ISCIS website), it specifically says dual-intent visa are appropriate for AOS in the US.
This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder).
What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc
I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset.
The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations.
In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).
The way I read the new policy is that it will be applied to people who have violated immigration law in some way.
An alien’s failure to comply with the conditions of their nonimmigrant admission or parole and an alien’s failure to depart as expected are highly relevant to this analysis
And those on dual-intent visa are fine…
USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.
It’s basically adhering to the laws on the books. If you’ve violated immigration law a high hurdle will be in place to use this special pathway.
However, if you’re in the US on a dual-intent visa (e.g. H1-B) then you can continue to use the AOS pathway. This includes temporary works on L or H visas. And includes those sponsoring their spouses on K visas.
In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?
Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.
This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?
This is my issue with AI.
In the type of work i do the work needs to be precise down to the context of how individual words are used.
Having AI pump out 20 pages of content but then me having to go through the 20 pages word by word, cross checking references and prior statements is going to take a long time.
Not to mention I didn’t write it, so my brain doesn’t already know what’s been written so it takes several passes to confirm its complete and that it all fits together.
I find it easy to just write it myself use AI for the more menial tasks like logic check, completeness checks, etc.
One task AI was very useful in was where we wanted to understand the gaps in a submission relative to a process requirement document. We didn’t care if the output was 100% complete or perfect, we just wanted a few examples.
Being able to input a couple 300 pages documents and have AI spit out a dozen examples in 30 seconds was a huge time saver.
But that was a non-critical task.
reply