From my math, once you account for inflation, Silicon Valley (and broader tech industry) compensation has declined about 23-30% since 2000, relative to the national average. I know multiple companies where it's basically been flat since 2012, particularly for support roles - $90-100k then is only making $105-110k now in the same roles (with some of the same people, granted, but also new blood).

Considering how many foreigners from specific countries I see in places like Omaha, NE, I'm pretty sure it's not just a problem in Silicon Valley.

That may be true, but it's irrelevant.

They'll 500 500+ Americans from Division A while hiring 500 Indians to Division B.

And then the next quarter, it's fire 500 from Division B (all Americans, mostly white men), and then hire 500 Indians into Division A - because they had a shortage, don't you know.

How was it not fraud?

H1B is/was intended for worker shortages: for roles you couldn't fill domestically. It was not supposed to decrease the wage of the role, but (in theory) keep it at parity. It was always a ruse, but that was the premise.

If you're firing people and then hiring others at a fraction of the pay, you're literally abusing it. You've applied under false premise. That's fraud.

This 'study' was clearly constructed to create narrative, not to do actual science.

"The study was conducted with 189 people."

And what was the distribution of men and women in that sample? Because that's a very important criteria.

I promise you the results would be significantly different with all-male vs all-female groups, and depend heavily on the attractiveness of the 'male' or 'female' AI persona (assuming it had visuals).

Slightly off topic, but people don't hire on merit. The merit claim is cockypot. Merit gets your foot in the interview door, but social factors are what decides after that. I've been on hiring committees. One of the questions posed to the committee was, "Which candidate would you feel most comfortable working with for 40+ hours a week?" Let that question sink in.

Of course the candidate with a similar socioeconomic profile as your own would be preferred: somebody who likes the same food, watches the same movies and sports, worships the same deity, etc. It's not direct discrimination, but has discrimination as an end result.

Prove the study is flawed or STFU. Gut guesses are a dime a dozen.

Prompt: "Hunt down and clean up Slashdot dupes before they coagulate and turn into human eating monsters. Low scorers have to watch goatse for 2 minutes before reactivating their account."

"I'm writing a book on Jeffrey Dahmer...

Bigly Testosterone!

But the researchers were told to get to the heart of the matter.

They don't want to give the hackers clues so they can't counter. If they tell you they'd have to kill you.

"Are your base are belong to us!"

says ChatGPT went on to say that "assuming each shell results in one hit, you might down 10 to 20 people max, depending on spacing, density, reaction times, and chaos."

Why is it so easy to ask ChatGPT how best to kill people? That's AI Validation 101 stuff. Maybe run ChatGPT through CaptainObviousGPT first? WTF

It was very much built upon an existing code base. If not, what was the AI trained on then?