3 ms·

Yes? This is an interview with an author that was conducted specifically to talk about the book and the material in it. What did you expect? Unrelated, I'd lik

by saulrh 9y ago

Yes? This is an interview with an author that was conducted specifically to talk about the book and the material in it. What did you expect? Unrelated, I'd like to see your argument against that particular line. IMO the comparison is an excellent one; its only issue is that the chosen scope ("the financial market") is too small. Corporations and other bureaucratic entities like governments are powerful cross-domain optimizers with utterly alien cognitive processes and goals. Intelligence, certainly, artificial, might as well call it that.

zghst 9y ago
Well I'd hope that we'd expect better when an author makes outrageous, nonsensical claims. They are rehashing the book instead of analyzing its claims and assessing its validity. Conveniently, the blame of all the issues are left on the firms instead of the rules of the marketplace, conditions, etc which lead to distortions and structural issues in the market.
- saulrh 9y ago
  I believe that you're looking for a very different piece than this was intended to be. This is essentially a summary of the book. I don't know what the motive was, but it's probably something like "I believe that more people should hear these ideas". The treatment you're requesting would likely qualify as a doctoral thesis. The writers at Wired do not have the time, nor is it likely that they have the expertise, to create that work, nor does the audience or funding exist to make it responsible course of action for the author. If you wish to engage on the claim itself, instead of spouting unsupported emotional appeals like "outrageous" and "nonsensical", perhaps you could present a rational argument? I suggest considering the belief I noted earlier about the scope of the argument: The label of "artificial intelligence" is valid for more than just financial organizations and market(s).
  - zghst 9y ago
    It is a poor attempt to reconcile the authors views within the industry that he exists within outside of the scope of the book. If they want to throw softballs fine. We are more than free to criticize his claims, free of a doctoral thesis, mind you.
    - deong 9y ago
      Of course you're free to criticize his claims. It's just pointless to demand someone else do it for you. The interviewer here apparently felt there was a different purpose than they one you'd want. I'm not sure what your recommended remedy for that would be -- forbid him from doing the piece? If you think the claims are "nonsense", then by all means, go off and write up your rebuttal.
- ufmace 9y ago
  I'd say this is what we call a Puff Piece. Something like 80% of all news is Puff Pieces or Hit Pieces on various things. There's not much practical difference between a Puff Piece and an ad, or a Hit Piece and an ad for the opposite side of whatever is getting hit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
edanm 9y ago
Calling financial markets AI is wrong in pretty much the only way a word can be "wrong": It's not what most people mean when they talk about AI. This makes it really easy to make statements that sound deep and meaningful, but really aren't. E.g. "I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence - we already have artificial intelligence, its called a company. Companies are artificial, and they behave intelligently". This just isn't what people are worried about. What people are worried about is: 1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI". 2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Again, this is only very thinly related to the "companies as AI" spiel (companies are not superintelligent, they don't actually have coherent goals of their own).
- crpatino 9y ago
  You need to get out more. The problem with companies is not that they are intelligent, but that they are artificial. >What people are worried about is: >1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI". Well, there is now a tendency for big companies to hire smaller outsourcing companies to provide labor and shield the first company from the liabilities that come with hiring human labor. I know I do not have the kind of proof that courts, and HN some dwellers, demand... but from hearsay in the local job market it is public knowledge that managers and ex-managers at main company are often owners of the outsourcing ones, or at least it was so 10 years ago before Indian companies like TATA raided the market. Also, it is not as if outsourcing companies are making peanuts. More hearsay, supposedly first hand, says that they charge as much as 1,000% of employees salary for their services. It is not possible in the US, but in the offshoring side of things, US based headquarters usually do not have a grasp of how much/little the foreing job markets are. In the local market, $1,000USD per month is a great salary for a junior programmer, and good for a senior one. Cost of liviing is lower that most US cities, let alone SFO... > 2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Superintelligence is a red herring. If you command as much resources as a Fortune 50 company, you can do a world of harm if your goals are sufficiently opposed to those of the general society. You just need to be "intelligent" enough to not go under during the next couple of years, which most big companies are. More so, let's consider the case when the company has "substandard intelligence", say if the management team is incompetent, or if they are distracted with internal conflict and lack the ethics to put the interest of the company ahead of their own, personal gain. A stupid company with plenty of resources to burn can deliver truckloads of hurt on its way down, and it does not have to be intentional either, unforeseen consequences are way more realistic ways for bad things to haven than the kind of evil performed by Bond-movie villians.

by saulrh 9y ago

zghst 9y ago

Well I'd hope that we'd expect better when an author makes outrageous, nonsensical claims. They are rehashing the book instead of analyzing its claims and assessing its validity. Conveniently, the blame of all the issues are left on the firms instead of the rules of the marketplace, conditions, etc which lead to distortions and structural issues in the market.

saulrh 9y ago
I believe that you're looking for a very different piece than this was intended to be. This is essentially a summary of the book. I don't know what the motive was, but it's probably something like "I believe that more people should hear these ideas". The treatment you're requesting would likely qualify as a doctoral thesis. The writers at Wired do not have the time, nor is it likely that they have the expertise, to create that work, nor does the audience or funding exist to make it responsible course of action for the author. If you wish to engage on the claim itself, instead of spouting unsupported emotional appeals like "outrageous" and "nonsensical", perhaps you could present a rational argument? I suggest considering the belief I noted earlier about the scope of the argument: The label of "artificial intelligence" is valid for more than just financial organizations and market(s).
- zghst 9y ago
  It is a poor attempt to reconcile the authors views within the industry that he exists within outside of the scope of the book. If they want to throw softballs fine. We are more than free to criticize his claims, free of a doctoral thesis, mind you.
  - deong 9y ago
    Of course you're free to criticize his claims. It's just pointless to demand someone else do it for you. The interviewer here apparently felt there was a different purpose than they one you'd want. I'm not sure what your recommended remedy for that would be -- forbid him from doing the piece? If you think the claims are "nonsense", then by all means, go off and write up your rebuttal.
ufmace 9y ago
I'd say this is what we call a Puff Piece. Something like 80% of all news is Puff Pieces or Hit Pieces on various things. There's not much practical difference between a Puff Piece and an ad, or a Hit Piece and an ad for the opposite side of whatever is getting hit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

edanm 9y ago

Calling financial markets AI is wrong in pretty much the only way a word can be "wrong": It's not what most people mean when they talk about AI. This makes it really easy to make statements that sound deep and meaningful, but really aren't. E.g. "I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence - we already have artificial intelligence, its called a company. Companies are artificial, and they behave intelligently". This just isn't what people are worried about. What people are worried about is: 1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI". 2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Again, this is only very thinly related to the "companies as AI" spiel (companies are not superintelligent, they don't actually have coherent goals of their own).

crpatino 9y ago
You need to get out more. The problem with companies is not that they are intelligent, but that they are artificial. >What people are worried about is: >1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI". Well, there is now a tendency for big companies to hire smaller outsourcing companies to provide labor and shield the first company from the liabilities that come with hiring human labor. I know I do not have the kind of proof that courts, and HN some dwellers, demand... but from hearsay in the local job market it is public knowledge that managers and ex-managers at main company are often owners of the outsourcing ones, or at least it was so 10 years ago before Indian companies like TATA raided the market. Also, it is not as if outsourcing companies are making peanuts. More hearsay, supposedly first hand, says that they charge as much as 1,000% of employees salary for their services. It is not possible in the US, but in the offshoring side of things, US based headquarters usually do not have a grasp of how much/little the foreing job markets are. In the local market, $1,000USD per month is a great salary for a junior programmer, and good for a senior one. Cost of liviing is lower that most US cities, let alone SFO... > 2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Superintelligence is a red herring. If you command as much resources as a Fortune 50 company, you can do a world of harm if your goals are sufficiently opposed to those of the general society. You just need to be "intelligent" enough to not go under during the next couple of years, which most big companies are. More so, let's consider the case when the company has "substandard intelligence", say if the management team is incompetent, or if they are distracted with internal conflict and lack the ethics to put the interest of the company ahead of their own, personal gain. A stupid company with plenty of resources to burn can deliver truckloads of hurt on its way down, and it does not have to be intentional either, unforeseen consequences are way more realistic ways for bad things to haven than the kind of evil performed by Bond-movie villians.