7 ms·

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 bett

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)
wyager 10y ago
> Predicting stock prices slightly better doesn't really make the world a better place or improve anyone's lives. Actually, it does. Increasing liquidity, communicating price information, more accurately accounting for predictable future changes in price, and absorbing risk allow for increased agricultural and industrial production. Like I said, you have to think through a few layers of abstraction. A nice rule of thumb is that if someone is getting paid to do something you personally think is useless, it's either a government job or you just don't get what they're doing, but the market does.
- anentropic 10y ago
  good grief you're right, I never realised, the market is always right about everything!
  - wyager 10y ago
    Nice straw man, but the market doesn't have to be right about everything; it just has to not be completely wrong about a market worth tens of trillions. The stock market is one of the mechanisms that allows the market to be right by communicating price information.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I don't believe that increasing liquidity produces much, if any, value for the world. The stock market itself is pretty disconnected from any real value, and at best any benefits just benefit rich investors buying stocks. It certainly doesn't increase production. But the opportunity cost is what I'm getting at. So many very intelligent people could be producing immense value in other areas, but instead drained away doing this garbage. And they are incentivized to keep anything useful they invent a secret.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Avoid speculating on such things when you clearly have no background in them. You will accomplish nothing but spreading misinformation. http://www.investmentreview.com/files/2010/07/The-value-of-liquidity1.pdf http://www.investmentreview.com/files/2010/07/The-value-of-l... https://fp7.portals.mbs.ac.uk/Portals/59/docs/Finger,%20MarkToLiquidity-Apr2011.pdf https://fp7.portals.mbs.ac.uk/Portals/59/docs/Finger,%20Mark... http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/liquidity.pdf http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/liquidit... https://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles/Internet/mgl/au/mfg/mim/docs/mim-investment-perspectives/ip14-value-of-liquidity.pdf?v=8 https://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles/Internet/mgl/au/mfg/mim... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_crisis The stock market is absolutely connected to "real value" (which doesn't make sense as a concept in the way you're trying to use it). Besides allowing companies to raise capital for future endeavors, it also allows the market to communicate price information, which is critical for reducing the risk associated with a given transaction. > at best any benefits just benefit rich investors buying stocks. It benefits everyone; investors risk their capital by selling it to companies in exchange for partial ownership, which allows the company to grow, and if the investment pays off the person who risked their money is rewarded. Without the stock market, companies would have to get loans for growth, which is risky and too expensive to be practical. > It certainly doesn't increase production. Yes, it very much does, for the reasons I outlined above. This is like Econ 101; why are you commenting so strongly when you clearly do not have any background here? > but instead drained away doing this garbage. A small efficiency increase expressed over 100 trillion dollars of trades every year is a huge productivity increase for society.

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)

wyager 10y ago

> Predicting stock prices slightly better doesn't really make the world a better place or improve anyone's lives. Actually, it does. Increasing liquidity, communicating price information, more accurately accounting for predictable future changes in price, and absorbing risk allow for increased agricultural and industrial production. Like I said, you have to think through a few layers of abstraction. A nice rule of thumb is that if someone is getting paid to do something you personally think is useless, it's either a government job or you just don't get what they're doing, but the market does.

anentropic 10y ago
good grief you're right, I never realised, the market is always right about everything!
- wyager 10y ago
  Nice straw man, but the market doesn't have to be right about everything; it just has to not be completely wrong about a market worth tens of trillions. The stock market is one of the mechanisms that allows the market to be right by communicating price information.
Houshalter 10y ago
I don't believe that increasing liquidity produces much, if any, value for the world. The stock market itself is pretty disconnected from any real value, and at best any benefits just benefit rich investors buying stocks. It certainly doesn't increase production. But the opportunity cost is what I'm getting at. So many very intelligent people could be producing immense value in other areas, but instead drained away doing this garbage. And they are incentivized to keep anything useful they invent a secret.
- wyager 10y ago
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. Avoid speculating on such things when you clearly have no background in them. You will accomplish nothing but spreading misinformation. http://www.investmentreview.com/files/2010/07/The-value-of-liquidity1.pdf http://www.investmentreview.com/files/2010/07/The-value-of-l... https://fp7.portals.mbs.ac.uk/Portals/59/docs/Finger,%20MarkToLiquidity-Apr2011.pdf https://fp7.portals.mbs.ac.uk/Portals/59/docs/Finger,%20Mark... http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/liquidity.pdf http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/liquidit... https://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles/Internet/mgl/au/mfg/mim/docs/mim-investment-perspectives/ip14-value-of-liquidity.pdf?v=8 https://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles/Internet/mgl/au/mfg/mim... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_crisis The stock market is absolutely connected to "real value" (which doesn't make sense as a concept in the way you're trying to use it). Besides allowing companies to raise capital for future endeavors, it also allows the market to communicate price information, which is critical for reducing the risk associated with a given transaction. > at best any benefits just benefit rich investors buying stocks. It benefits everyone; investors risk their capital by selling it to companies in exchange for partial ownership, which allows the company to grow, and if the investment pays off the person who risked their money is rewarded. Without the stock market, companies would have to get loans for growth, which is risky and too expensive to be practical. > It certainly doesn't increase production. Yes, it very much does, for the reasons I outlined above. This is like Econ 101; why are you commenting so strongly when you clearly do not have any background here? > but instead drained away doing this garbage. A small efficiency increase expressed over 100 trillion dollars of trades every year is a huge productivity increase for society.