4 ms·

>Absolutely, but isn't this type of software generally used to augment existing jobs, rather than replace them? Is there a difference? If a person does 10x as

by zardo 10y ago

>Absolutely, but isn't this type of software generally used to augment existing jobs, rather than replace them? Is there a difference? If a person does 10x as much you need 1/10th as many of them.

burkaman 10y ago
But this is about responding faster, not responding more often. It helps you react to a story before everyone else, but there's only so many stories in a day.
Scea91 10y ago
Or you can have 10× productivity.
- zardo 10y ago
  You have that either way. The question is do you need 10x the output?
cm2187 10y ago
These algorithms are only good at front running the reaction of the market, which is fairly predictable in the short term when a relevant piece of news is published. They are nowhere for making long term investment decisions. AI everywhere is as naive as software everywhere. It costs a lot of money to develop and maintain software professionally. It's uneconomical to staff an IT team to replace every routine job there is with software. It will be the same with AI. If you apply enough bright people's mind for long enough, we can possibly automate certain niche jobs, but that's going to be completely uneconomical. You need to pay these AI specialists, and retain them so that you can adapt your algos as the problem moves, and there needs to be more than one in case one goes or is ill. You can easily spend more that the salaries you are going to spare. Other problems are I believe too vast and open ended for AI to come up with anything useful. What company will be successful in 5 years? What is the right level of renumeration for the management of that company? Where is innovation going next? You really think that AI is anywhere near answering that kind of questions? AI will shine in similar areas where software shines. Problems that are simple enough to be understood by computer scientists (and that narrows down this vast world quite a bit), and that are broad enough to justify the economics of making high investments to build data, or where there is already ample of existing and relevant data. Driving a car. Cleaning or building a house. Replicating certain hand movements. Things like that. I doubt an expert on a narrow and specialised domain has much to fear from AI.
- karim 10y ago
  > It will be the same with AI. If you apply enough bright people's mind for long enough, we can possibly automate certain niche jobs, but that's going to be completely uneconomical. The thing is, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If you can write software to make a team of ten traders 10% more productive, it may be possible to do the same job with only 9 traders. Over time, those productivity gains compound and you have literally cut in half the number of people on your trading floor.
  - eru 10y ago
    I've seen that happen to FX traders, and some fairly straight-forward automation. No AI was required.
    - Retric 10y ago
      AI is a very flexible term, all software that makes choices technically qualifies as AI even if the benchmark is moved over time. But, remove the buzzards and rejecting a loan using a single if statement based on a Fico score really is machine decision making at work.
lend000 10y ago
It should be noted that demand is not a static quantity. If a technology allowed a person to create more per-unit cost will be cheaper, raising demand (people on the bottom will still lose jobs, but it's not linear).

by zardo 10y ago

>Absolutely, but isn't this type of software generally used to augment existing jobs, rather than replace them? Is there a difference? If a person does 10x as much you need 1/10th as many of them.

burkaman 10y ago

But this is about responding faster, not responding more often. It helps you react to a story before everyone else, but there's only so many stories in a day.

Scea91 10y ago

Or you can have 10× productivity.

zardo 10y ago
You have that either way. The question is do you need 10x the output?

cm2187 10y ago

These algorithms are only good at front running the reaction of the market, which is fairly predictable in the short term when a relevant piece of news is published. They are nowhere for making long term investment decisions. AI everywhere is as naive as software everywhere. It costs a lot of money to develop and maintain software professionally. It's uneconomical to staff an IT team to replace every routine job there is with software. It will be the same with AI. If you apply enough bright people's mind for long enough, we can possibly automate certain niche jobs, but that's going to be completely uneconomical. You need to pay these AI specialists, and retain them so that you can adapt your algos as the problem moves, and there needs to be more than one in case one goes or is ill. You can easily spend more that the salaries you are going to spare. Other problems are I believe too vast and open ended for AI to come up with anything useful. What company will be successful in 5 years? What is the right level of renumeration for the management of that company? Where is innovation going next? You really think that AI is anywhere near answering that kind of questions? AI will shine in similar areas where software shines. Problems that are simple enough to be understood by computer scientists (and that narrows down this vast world quite a bit), and that are broad enough to justify the economics of making high investments to build data, or where there is already ample of existing and relevant data. Driving a car. Cleaning or building a house. Replicating certain hand movements. Things like that. I doubt an expert on a narrow and specialised domain has much to fear from AI.

karim 10y ago
> It will be the same with AI. If you apply enough bright people's mind for long enough, we can possibly automate certain niche jobs, but that's going to be completely uneconomical. The thing is, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If you can write software to make a team of ten traders 10% more productive, it may be possible to do the same job with only 9 traders. Over time, those productivity gains compound and you have literally cut in half the number of people on your trading floor.
- eru 10y ago
  I've seen that happen to FX traders, and some fairly straight-forward automation. No AI was required.
  - Retric 10y ago
    AI is a very flexible term, all software that makes choices technically qualifies as AI even if the benchmark is moved over time. But, remove the buzzards and rejecting a loan using a single if statement based on a Fico score really is machine decision making at work.

lend000 10y ago

It should be noted that demand is not a static quantity. If a technology allowed a person to create more per-unit cost will be cheaper, raising demand (people on the bottom will still lose jobs, but it's not linear).