6 ms·

"It's just a pure math problem. It's like a math competition. You don't need to know anything about finance, you don't know anything about hedge funds... you do

"It's just a pure math problem. It's like a math competition. You don't need to know anything about finance, you don't know anything about hedge funds... you don't even have to speak English..." This is not a pure math problem. Eventually the outcome of all these models and predictions affects the stock prices and - if it becomes as successful as you hope - the economy as a whole. And the physical world: people, animals, plants, pollution, CO2 and so on. I would much rather see work in that area - than this data juggling deep learning bullshit which results in profits being paid out to a bunch of intelligent, greedy and unwise people. I just hope that when the intelligent people finally become wise, it won't be too late.

werdna123 10y ago
We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning
wyager 10y ago
> than this data juggling deep learning bullshit which results in profits being paid out to a bunch of intelligent, greedy and unwise people. Holy anti-intellectualism, Batman! If you describe machine learning as "data juggling bullshit", this is very strong evidence that you simply don't understand what it is. This is an indictment of you, not of machine learning. Machine learning would more accurately be called "applied computational statistics" in 99% of cases. What makes you think that the people using applied statistics to make money are "unwise"? Based on your tone, I would guess that it's because what they're doing doesn't agree with your folk definition of "an honest day's work" or something like that. This isn't really a good criticism; it just means you don't see the utility of what they're doing, which requires some degree of abstract thinking about the market.
- pyrophane 10y ago
  I didn't read it as a criticism of machine learning or intellectuals, but rather of the many bright minds that are trying to make money off of the stock market by writing software to make better trades. This kind of activity doesn't create value or even, to my knowledge, liquidity. I believe he's suggesting that there are a lot of other areas where their knowledge and skills could be applied which would create some societal benefit as a byproduct.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > This kind of activity doesn't create value or even, to my knowledge, liquidity. It does both, the latter by more efficiently communicating price information and incorporating future events into asset prices. More accurate AI traders absorb risk, which is good for the production economy.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I read it mainly as a criticism of this site and this application of deep learning. Predicting stock prices slightly better doesn't really make the world a better place or improve anyone's lives. But it does consume the time and resources of very intelligent people who might be able to do incredible things elsewhere. Particularly the problem of this website, is it's huge focus on anonymity. You don't need to expose your code or methods, or even your name. It's an ongoing competition so it encourages secrecy so you can make more money next week. This means even if someone does invent a new super ML method, they have every incentive to not share it and keep it a secret. So this website could actually have a net negative impact on the world.
  - shoegumfoot 10y ago
    Don't you think that is says something (not terribly good) about society that these very intelligent people must spend their time this way if they want to be rewarded? Why spend 80 hours a week chasing grant money when you can spend 60 moving numbers around?
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      No. First off, "reward" is not just about the money[0]. The job presented on this site, on the other hand, due to the encryption, is motivated purely and entirely by monetary reward. Everything else is shielded. In fact I'd say this job is quite uniquely, extremely, only about the money. Even when compared to other kinds sweet/lucrative, perhaps "stupid lucky" jobs you may find, that may require 60 hours mindlessly pushing papers, yet paid extremely well. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any hypothetical kind of job could be more sharply, singularly focussed on the "do extremely-intelligent-monkey-dance, receive ample bio-survival-tickets" to the exclusion of any other meaning or fulfilment than this Encrypted Machine Lottery/Learning/Sudoku. Second, I could be wrong (or too optimistic) but I'd hope that most "very intelligent" people demand more nourishing reward than just money to regularly put in more than 40h/wk. You can do this for research and advancement of science, or maybe because one considers the work itself a net positive to society, or maybe you chose to sacrifice those hours of your life to support loved ones, maybe there's some deep personal reward in it, or maybe it's temporary and you're saving for something rewarding. But to pretend just money is enough to waste your life on, hey it's a choice, but I'm going to have to see you turn in your "very intelligent"-card. On the other hand, there will be exceptions. Some people don't care, just want to maximize $$$ for the least amount of effort/hours of one's life, regardless of side-effects. This website does not fill a niche for these people. If you are extremely intelligent, just want money and don't care about moral aspects, there's always been plenty "business opportunities" to fulfil these particular needs. Finally, if one would argue, but this job isn't quite explicitly "badwrong" like those others. I'd suggest to think it through: On the one hand, a (possibly) well-paying job that is designed from the bottom up to have no way of determining whether it has a net positive or negative external effect besides the money it pays you. On the other hand, literally anything else you could do with your time. I can see people trying this for a short time, as a funny puzzle, at most. [0] I don't mean this one, but because I still think it's funny, I'll point out the way-too-easy retort here: this says something (not terribly good) about you. (j/k)
- delegate 10y ago
  > What makes you think that the people using applied statistics to make money are "unwise"? Because it is an incredible waste of talent. I know this is in contradiction with all the 'values' that have been drilled into our minds since we were born, but it's about time we wake up and reorder our priorities. >Based on your tone, I would guess that it's because what they're doing doesn't agree with your folk definition of "an honest day's work" or something like that. If you look at the state of the biosphere / atmosphere / oceans - the data - and if you have children - then it should be quite obvious. Also there are the socio-economic challenges that the world faces right now - in fact it is unclear if we're going to make it to the next century as a species. It really don't matter how much "money" you have in your account when your city sinks under the ocean...
  - hueving 10y ago
    >It really don't matter how much "money" you have in your account when your city sinks under the ocean.. You just move. That's what money enables. No city is going to sink so rapidly people just drown.
    - inimino 10y ago
      So you're literally arguing that we just need to focus on making money, and ignore things like the environment? Yep, sounds about like a textbook example of "unwise" to me.
      - hueving 10y ago
        Nope, just pointing out how stupid the conclusion is that the poster made.
    - xg15 10y ago
      So the 2012 (the movie) way of solving environmental problems: The cities can drown as long as we don't belong to the people who drown with it.
    - austinjp 10y ago
      What of the poor whose villages are (in effect) being sunk by the rich, or destroyed in various other creative ways?
neffy 10y ago
Agreed - it is a terrible waste of talent. Ironically, it's also not entirely a math problem - the underlying system doesn't exactly follow the expected rules of math.
- mr_pink 10y ago
  What expected "rules of math" does it not follow?
zer0gravity 10y ago
I'm currently watching George Soros's lectures on his reflexivity theory appliend to financial markets [1], where it explains why their evolution is not easy to model due to "human uncertainty principle", which postulates that our actions, based on incomplete and distorted data make things unpredictable.. It makes a lot of sense. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHSEEJDKJho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHSEEJDKJho
usgroup 10y ago
The data is encrypted. There are a set of factors in sequential order. You know little more. So for instance it's not obvious that the predictions are of stock prices at all. They are in effect crowd sourcing curve fitting because the number of possible models for this maths problem is so large. Think of crowd sourcing here as a pruning heauristic in a search problem.

werdna123 10y ago

We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning

wyager 10y ago

> than this data juggling deep learning bullshit which results in profits being paid out to a bunch of intelligent, greedy and unwise people. Holy anti-intellectualism, Batman! If you describe machine learning as "data juggling bullshit", this is very strong evidence that you simply don't understand what it is. This is an indictment of you, not of machine learning. Machine learning would more accurately be called "applied computational statistics" in 99% of cases. What makes you think that the people using applied statistics to make money are "unwise"? Based on your tone, I would guess that it's because what they're doing doesn't agree with your folk definition of "an honest day's work" or something like that. This isn't really a good criticism; it just means you don't see the utility of what they're doing, which requires some degree of abstract thinking about the market.

pyrophane 10y ago
I didn't read it as a criticism of machine learning or intellectuals, but rather of the many bright minds that are trying to make money off of the stock market by writing software to make better trades. This kind of activity doesn't create value or even, to my knowledge, liquidity. I believe he's suggesting that there are a lot of other areas where their knowledge and skills could be applied which would create some societal benefit as a byproduct.
- wyager 10y ago
  > This kind of activity doesn't create value or even, to my knowledge, liquidity. It does both, the latter by more efficiently communicating price information and incorporating future events into asset prices. More accurate AI traders absorb risk, which is good for the production economy.
Houshalter 10y ago
I read it mainly as a criticism of this site and this application of deep learning. Predicting stock prices slightly better doesn't really make the world a better place or improve anyone's lives. But it does consume the time and resources of very intelligent people who might be able to do incredible things elsewhere. Particularly the problem of this website, is it's huge focus on anonymity. You don't need to expose your code or methods, or even your name. It's an ongoing competition so it encourages secrecy so you can make more money next week. This means even if someone does invent a new super ML method, they have every incentive to not share it and keep it a secret. So this website could actually have a net negative impact on the world.
- shoegumfoot 10y ago
  Don't you think that is says something (not terribly good) about society that these very intelligent people must spend their time this way if they want to be rewarded? Why spend 80 hours a week chasing grant money when you can spend 60 moving numbers around?
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    No. First off, "reward" is not just about the money[0]. The job presented on this site, on the other hand, due to the encryption, is motivated purely and entirely by monetary reward. Everything else is shielded. In fact I'd say this job is quite uniquely, extremely, only about the money. Even when compared to other kinds sweet/lucrative, perhaps "stupid lucky" jobs you may find, that may require 60 hours mindlessly pushing papers, yet paid extremely well. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any hypothetical kind of job could be more sharply, singularly focussed on the "do extremely-intelligent-monkey-dance, receive ample bio-survival-tickets" to the exclusion of any other meaning or fulfilment than this Encrypted Machine Lottery/Learning/Sudoku. Second, I could be wrong (or too optimistic) but I'd hope that most "very intelligent" people demand more nourishing reward than just money to regularly put in more than 40h/wk. You can do this for research and advancement of science, or maybe because one considers the work itself a net positive to society, or maybe you chose to sacrifice those hours of your life to support loved ones, maybe there's some deep personal reward in it, or maybe it's temporary and you're saving for something rewarding. But to pretend just money is enough to waste your life on, hey it's a choice, but I'm going to have to see you turn in your "very intelligent"-card. On the other hand, there will be exceptions. Some people don't care, just want to maximize $$$ for the least amount of effort/hours of one's life, regardless of side-effects. This website does not fill a niche for these people. If you are extremely intelligent, just want money and don't care about moral aspects, there's always been plenty "business opportunities" to fulfil these particular needs. Finally, if one would argue, but this job isn't quite explicitly "badwrong" like those others. I'd suggest to think it through: On the one hand, a (possibly) well-paying job that is designed from the bottom up to have no way of determining whether it has a net positive or negative external effect besides the money it pays you. On the other hand, literally anything else you could do with your time. I can see people trying this for a short time, as a funny puzzle, at most. [0] I don't mean this one, but because I still think it's funny, I'll point out the way-too-easy retort here: this says something (not terribly good) about you. (j/k)
delegate 10y ago
> What makes you think that the people using applied statistics to make money are "unwise"? Because it is an incredible waste of talent. I know this is in contradiction with all the 'values' that have been drilled into our minds since we were born, but it's about time we wake up and reorder our priorities. >Based on your tone, I would guess that it's because what they're doing doesn't agree with your folk definition of "an honest day's work" or something like that. If you look at the state of the biosphere / atmosphere / oceans - the data - and if you have children - then it should be quite obvious. Also there are the socio-economic challenges that the world faces right now - in fact it is unclear if we're going to make it to the next century as a species. It really don't matter how much "money" you have in your account when your city sinks under the ocean...
- hueving 10y ago
  >It really don't matter how much "money" you have in your account when your city sinks under the ocean.. You just move. That's what money enables. No city is going to sink so rapidly people just drown.
  - inimino 10y ago
    So you're literally arguing that we just need to focus on making money, and ignore things like the environment? Yep, sounds about like a textbook example of "unwise" to me.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Nope, just pointing out how stupid the conclusion is that the poster made.
  - xg15 10y ago
    So the 2012 (the movie) way of solving environmental problems: The cities can drown as long as we don't belong to the people who drown with it.
  - austinjp 10y ago
    What of the poor whose villages are (in effect) being sunk by the rich, or destroyed in various other creative ways?

neffy 10y ago

Agreed - it is a terrible waste of talent. Ironically, it's also not entirely a math problem - the underlying system doesn't exactly follow the expected rules of math.

mr_pink 10y ago
What expected "rules of math" does it not follow?

zer0gravity 10y ago

I'm currently watching George Soros's lectures on his reflexivity theory appliend to financial markets [1], where it explains why their evolution is not easy to model due to "human uncertainty principle", which postulates that our actions, based on incomplete and distorted data make things unpredictable.. It makes a lot of sense. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHSEEJDKJho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHSEEJDKJho

usgroup 10y ago

The data is encrypted. There are a set of factors in sequential order. You know little more. So for instance it's not obvious that the predictions are of stock prices at all. They are in effect crowd sourcing curve fitting because the number of possible models for this maths problem is so large. Think of crowd sourcing here as a pruning heauristic in a search problem.