3 ms·
At face value, this sounds like pure moral panic. Did we have such fear when "algorithms" began to take over? I'm all for regulations that can help keep thing
by taeric 3y ago
At face value, this sounds like pure moral panic. Did we have such fear when "algorithms" began to take over?
I'm all for regulations that can help keep things safe. I'm.... not clear on what sort of safety these rules are aiming for. Would love a solid rundown from anyone that can summarize well.
- chris11 3y agoI'm not familiar with the rules. But if you train AI on customer data you might end up with something that looks like front-running.
- taeric 3y agoBut... front-running would already be against the rules? Such that, even if this did happen, why need new rules? (Also, I'm curious on how you could get front running? You could get an AI model that only works if it can front run, sure. But that would likely be an AI model that simply falls on its face. And... you don't need "AI" for this failure case.) Put differently, if you weren't worried about "ML", than why are you now worried about "AI?"
- lern_too_spel 3y agoThe quote from the SEC doesn't say anything about AI. The article says the fiduciary duty rules could be clarified and updated for robo-advisers.
- taeric 3y agoCool. I'm still curious on what comes up. I know the SEC has explicitly called out AI.