The question is a logical fallacy. I worked at an IB and even in 2011 traders were acutely aware of the benefits of technology and eager to invest in it and emb

The question is a logical fallacy. I worked at an IB and even in 2011 traders were acutely aware of the benefits of technology and eager to invest in it and embrace it. Many of the answers here are regurgitations of techno-utopian talking points that do not take into account three issues 1. Traders generally exert an advisory/supervisory role on the set of prices that the bank offers, prices which are based on a formula or other fairly automatic means, with an added human adjustment. They already extensively use technology. 2. Traders are therefore most involved where profit can be made but simple algorithms don't work. For example, pricing big deals in illiquid markets, like when a company issues a large complex bond. As this contract is by definition not traded yet and not the same as others, there is necessarily limited applicable training data, so that there is no way to learn by example - i.e., use deep learning techniques (what I assume the question is asking about). In this case, trust and relationships are extremely important as both sides of the deal have limited information. 3. Markets change dynamics, often very rapidly. Traders have to react intelligently to events: like interest rates hitting the zero lower bound, wars breaking out or industrial accidents. They need to anticipate the actual consequence to future cash flows and also to sense the appetite of the market after the event. Publicly announced AI techniques are very far away from this kind of complex general reasoning. The days of manual trading are long gone: of open outcry traders, yelling in bullpits and making handsignals, when banks would hire big imposing ex-football players. The question is a "why do you feel you can get away with beating your wife"?