5 ms·

Ken Griffin says the AI community is making a mistake by creating so much hype

24 points by SirLJ 3y ago

maxilevi 3y ago
> “Here’s the problem with large language models: they are built on the past, everything we do is about the future,” Griffin said. So Ken sees books and backtesting trading strats as useless too? I really expected more knowledgeable answers
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  "So Ken sees books and backtesting trading strats as useless too?" You think Ken Griffin is reading books on how to make money in the market? Running a successful market maker? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think in the context of his business, he is probably right...
  - maxilevi 3y ago
    No, but I bet his quants backtest trading strategies. His argument for dismissing LLMs is nonsensical, just because something uses information from the past doesn't mean its useless. In fact, every tool we have can match that criticism in one way or another
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      Yes, but backtesting does not need an LLM...backtesting has been a thing for many, many years. Also, if you listen to any of his other speeches, or read the article, he does mention that they are using LLMs to port code from one language to another...so, he is not entirely dismissing LLMs.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  It's pretty frustrating how ridiculous people sound when dismissing LLMs. They barely even try to think about this stuff. First thought, best thought.
  - rank0 3y ago
    You believe LLMs are capable of predicting financial markets? In his line of work, he’s absolutely right. Correlations change. Markets react to themselves. LLMs may have some place in analyzing prior data…but it can’t predict what interest rates will be, whether or not congress will increase taxes on stock buybacks, or anticipate an armed conflict with China. Let’s get real here FFS
    - maxilevi 3y ago
      I agree but he wasn't talking about predicting financial markets, he was talking about global implications in industries like law and finance. And LLMs as a knowledge retrieval mechanism can already be pretty useful in those areas.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        They can, yes. But the hype machine that's running overtime about LLMs is not making that case at all. It's all about how LLMs are some kind of miracle machine that will either solve or cause all of mankind's problems. The hype is insane and is absolutely harming the cause that the pro-AI crowd is trying to push forward. I wouldn't really mind this much aside from on grounds of taste, except that it's actively preventing people from actually understanding these technologies and being able to reach grounded conclusions about them.
        than3 3y ago
        Well it most definitely will cause unrest/revolution if it stalls the economic cycle where people can't get food. That's happened enough times in recorded history to have a solid causal link. Which is already possible with current LLM capabilities; but since its decentralized won't be noticeable until its too late (like a dam breaking).
        JimtheCoder 3y ago
        "Well it most definitely will cause unrest/revolution if it stalls the economic cycle where people can't get food. That's happened enough times in recorded history to have a solid causal link." Examples? Genuinely curious
stuckkeys 3y ago
Ken Griffin needs to worry about covering the shorts.
- timidger 3y ago
  I always love to see reddit leaking onto this site
  - stuckkeys 3y ago
    both worlds can co-exist. M i rite? Haha
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  AMC/GameStop cult member spotted..
  - stuckkeys 3y ago
    lol
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
StefanWestfal 3y ago
I am always a bit disappointed when only few arguments are provided. Ken Griffin might have a good understanding of the implications of LLM or not but that is hard to tell here. Especially law will be interesting to watch. Lawmakers have to encode their intentions into text. LLM are good at detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on. On top of that I would argue that we learn from the past to predict the future. Laws do not change as frequently as tech does. So LLMs might turn out to be excellent at understanding the law, at least written law, and experienced from all the cases they saw during training. I think law is in for a change similar to software.
- patentatt 3y ago
  Lawyers are already sufficiently good at "detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on" in written legal texts, that's not really the hard part in practicing law. Even legal research, despite what non-lawyers may think, isn't all that big of a problem for wide swaths of lawyers. In any given field, there's going to be a short list of relevant cases to know, and everyone will know pretty quickly when a new one comes out. Experienced lawyers don't generally spend a lot of time doing legal research. The hard part is in fitting the facts of your case to the fact pattern of the cases you're relying on for your legal argument, and then fitting it all together so that its easy to read, understand, and agree with.

24 points by SirLJ 3y ago

> “Here’s the problem with large language models: they are built on the past, everything we do is about the future,” Griffin said. So Ken sees books and backtesting trading strats as useless too? I really expected more knowledgeable answers

JimtheCoder 3y ago
"So Ken sees books and backtesting trading strats as useless too?" You think Ken Griffin is reading books on how to make money in the market? Running a successful market maker? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think in the context of his business, he is probably right...
- maxilevi 3y ago
  No, but I bet his quants backtest trading strategies. His argument for dismissing LLMs is nonsensical, just because something uses information from the past doesn't mean its useless. In fact, every tool we have can match that criticism in one way or another
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    Yes, but backtesting does not need an LLM...backtesting has been a thing for many, many years. Also, if you listen to any of his other speeches, or read the article, he does mention that they are using LLMs to port code from one language to another...so, he is not entirely dismissing LLMs.
ryanklee 3y ago
It's pretty frustrating how ridiculous people sound when dismissing LLMs. They barely even try to think about this stuff. First thought, best thought.
- rank0 3y ago
  You believe LLMs are capable of predicting financial markets? In his line of work, he’s absolutely right. Correlations change. Markets react to themselves. LLMs may have some place in analyzing prior data…but it can’t predict what interest rates will be, whether or not congress will increase taxes on stock buybacks, or anticipate an armed conflict with China. Let’s get real here FFS
  - maxilevi 3y ago
    I agree but he wasn't talking about predicting financial markets, he was talking about global implications in industries like law and finance. And LLMs as a knowledge retrieval mechanism can already be pretty useful in those areas.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      They can, yes. But the hype machine that's running overtime about LLMs is not making that case at all. It's all about how LLMs are some kind of miracle machine that will either solve or cause all of mankind's problems. The hype is insane and is absolutely harming the cause that the pro-AI crowd is trying to push forward. I wouldn't really mind this much aside from on grounds of taste, except that it's actively preventing people from actually understanding these technologies and being able to reach grounded conclusions about them.
      - than3 3y ago
        Well it most definitely will cause unrest/revolution if it stalls the economic cycle where people can't get food. That's happened enough times in recorded history to have a solid causal link. Which is already possible with current LLM capabilities; but since its decentralized won't be noticeable until its too late (like a dam breaking).
        JimtheCoder 3y ago
        "Well it most definitely will cause unrest/revolution if it stalls the economic cycle where people can't get food. That's happened enough times in recorded history to have a solid causal link." Examples? Genuinely curious

stuckkeys 3y ago

Ken Griffin needs to worry about covering the shorts.

timidger 3y ago
I always love to see reddit leaking onto this site
- stuckkeys 3y ago
  both worlds can co-exist. M i rite? Haha
boeingUH60 3y ago
AMC/GameStop cult member spotted..
- stuckkeys 3y ago
  lol
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

StefanWestfal 3y ago

I am always a bit disappointed when only few arguments are provided. Ken Griffin might have a good understanding of the implications of LLM or not but that is hard to tell here. Especially law will be interesting to watch. Lawmakers have to encode their intentions into text. LLM are good at detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on. On top of that I would argue that we learn from the past to predict the future. Laws do not change as frequently as tech does. So LLMs might turn out to be excellent at understanding the law, at least written law, and experienced from all the cases they saw during training. I think law is in for a change similar to software.

patentatt 3y ago
Lawyers are already sufficiently good at "detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on" in written legal texts, that's not really the hard part in practicing law. Even legal research, despite what non-lawyers may think, isn't all that big of a problem for wide swaths of lawyers. In any given field, there's going to be a short list of relevant cases to know, and everyone will know pretty quickly when a new one comes out. Experienced lawyers don't generally spend a lot of time doing legal research. The hard part is in fitting the facts of your case to the fact pattern of the cases you're relying on for your legal argument, and then fitting it all together so that its easy to read, understand, and agree with.