4chan sued Ofcom over the fines. Ofcom has been perhaps waiting for the outcome of this suit and is announcing they can't collect fines but I don't think that was the purpose. They have the power to instruct ISPs to block domains and to me it seems more likely that is what they will do and that was perhaps what they wanted from the beginning.

But I think there's a practical side of it too. Finding what the limits of humans are is worthwhile too. Maybe the best analogy is like a group of people trying to find their way through a cave in the dark. One of them found a new passage and has a technique for doing it. So maybe we expanded what we thought humans were capable of. Could there be passages that humans can't get through? That might be useful to know. If we find proofs that humans just can't comprehend or have knowledge requirements that humans can't reasonably obtain that might be useful for us to know. A lot of math is not really applied to anything useful, it is just knowledge that is accumulated that other people thought was worthwhile perhaps because it was considered difficult for humans. So basically the journey to the proof is the value add and not the proof itself perhaps and AI might be erasing the journey. I have previously described it as a helicopter ride to the top of Everest but the point of climbing Everest is the difficult part. That's why people do it, the challenge.

This isn't even a good basis. The question is what the purpose of visa to residence work programs achieves. No one ever questions the underlying assumptions. Like for example, could filling skilled roles actually cause a self fulfilling prophecy? If Americans assume immigrants will fill a role, they don't acquire the skill which actually creates a dependence on immigration to fill it.

I would also argue that "global talent" in practice is just creating ethnic labor castes which I would also argue is a very destabilizing structure. So I would push back on your framing that more "global talent" is always good and actually I don't believe the premise that top talent must be imported.

There's two points about this I am assuming 1) Mathematics actually has a significant subjectivity to it and is community oriented and not just climbing a never ending list of theorems that exists in the universe 2) A lot of mathematical research work is inside of a subfield and isn't directly motivated by applications. Sometimes it is but e.g. people don't work on obscure theorems about elliptic curves because of a dire need for that but more because the community found it interesting.

I don't like nuance here. I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand, not machines. It is significant if we find problems we struggle to solve. That tells us something. What does it take for humans to solve these problems is related.

The best analogy I can give is if you wanted to climb Mt. Everest you might ask someone for guidance. Would it be better to ask someone who has climbed Mt. Everest or someone who took a helicopter ride up near the top and then went to the peak? This is like the AI versus human gap to me. The helicopter is like using AI to generate a proof. The person who actually climbed Mt. Everest has firsthand knowledge of the experience. Same thing for a difficult proof. The struggle people have is actually valuable here. Likewise, we know people are actually capable of climbing Mt. Everest but if they had only ever rode a helicopter to the top, the knowledge of climbing it would not exist, and surely that is meaningful knowledge given the risks.

So if we rely on AI for proofs I think we lose a sense of what is difficult and why. We lose a sense of what human achievement is. Surely climbing Mt. Everest means more than taking a helicopter up? For students, why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now? This would have the affect of destroying knowledge.

(please do not nitpick the analogy because it's the best but perhaps a clumsy way to describe my thoughts)

In the case of mathematicians, I think not as researchers. What would a research mathematician do? I don't think there would be any reason to try to gain insight from proofs that AI made for the sake of understanding. I don't see what that would achieve besides just retaining extremely niche knowledge (which AI or the oracle already does). The whole point of having that knowledge was to build toward novel work which the AI/oracle does. Also, the time spent and difficulty understanding them could be very high but with no payoff besides just understanding them because the AI/oracle would be used to solve all the problems anyway.

So the immigrants end up with the same birth rate and then we have to bring in more immigrants. So there would have to be a constant source of excess people somewhere else for this to be sustainable. So it gets to a point where I wonder if this is really the plan.

I don't know if protectionism is the right word.

>the vehicle for change you seek is the legislature

I never argued the fee was legal for reference. And oop must've forgotten that Congress cared about my concerns, thanks for the tip!

That brings us to

    Americans are too dumb to get these jobs so we still need it: 

    Americans are not too dumb but we need H-1B anyway for reasons:

Oh yes, yeesh, my bad, this is for green cards only, there's some hilariously low bar for H-1B yet it still exists. But let's just go back to my point that H-1B is used to lower wages. You can just search for it unless you think it's a conspiracy theory. For all your frothing hostility, I noticed you didn't try to defend lowered wages. What are you defending here? Corporate profits? Some kind of moral issue? Do you have evidence H-1B was vitally necessary?

> incredibly niche and out-there theories

It's a scientific theory.

> support protectionism

I think that misses the point if you mean trade protectionism. I am saying H-1B (also EB-2 and other degree to green card pipelines) presents a danger of destabilizing society. I already think that's obviously the case.

But for me, a larger concern is elite overproduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turchin#Elite_overproduc...). We've basically massively expanded the number of highly credentialed people in the country and this might not be a good idea.

To many people, they believe there is a constant and persistent threat of Nazis and that it is the duty of enlightened government officials to continuously stage interventions to stop them. They think people are the problem so it is good to be totalitarian. It is kind of a type of paranoia it's just widely accepted as fact and it's a part of Western institutional ethos.

These are NGOs not parents. And "child safety" is often a euphemism. The point is it's hard to argue against child safety. For example, if opaque NGOs demand deanonymization to stop CSAM, I am assuming most people would not want to seem like they are in favor of CSAM. So you need an organized effort to argue in favor of privacy and even then anyone who does it can easily be smeared as a CSAM user. So child safety can backdoor something else.