3 ms·

Thanks, “head of stock research”. Definitely a real job that’s not at all made up. I’m sure he did a lot of chin stroking and graph glancing to come to this tec

by bbor 2y ago

Thanks, “head of stock research”. Definitely a real job that’s not at all made up. I’m sure he did a lot of chin stroking and graph glancing to come to this technical decision! Someone should let all the scientists know that they’re wrong, and intuitive algorithms are “not needed”… EDIT: I'm 'posting too fast', so I'll break the rules instead and post my response here: Thanks for the polite reply, despite the disagreement! No offense intended to any finance folks on here, but it's a murderously harmful industry built on lies. Being an expert in evaluating businesses in general is an absurd job, IMO; the whole system is a mix of gambling and coercion, and the veneer they put on it of "making the right plays" and "reading the market" is a tiny, tiny percentage of what they actually make money from, if it even works at all. In other words: what would you study to become an expert in the concept of predicting the future of all human activity? Here's the report discussed in this article: https://www.goldmansachs.com/images/migrated/insights/pages/gs-research/gen-ai--too-much-spend,-too-little-benefit-/TOM_AI%202.0_ForRedaction.pdf https://www.goldmansachs.com/images/migrated/insights/pages/... AFAICT, his entire argument boils down to this: In our experience, even basic summarization tasks often yield illegible and nonsensical results. This is not a matter of just some tweaks being required here and there; despite its expensive price tag, the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to be useful for even such basic tasks. This analysis needs citations of academic discussion on the specifics of the new technologies and how exactly they will fit into existing ones, not "we tried it around the office and couldn't get it to work". Certainly the bosses at Xerox failed to see any use for PCs in their own lives; after all, it's quicker to call someone on the phone, and cheaper to just write a letter! Just like desktop PCs were a clunky presentiment of the countless applications of miniaturized computers (phones, smart appliances, automotive features, and microcontrollers in general), today's chatbots are a clunky presentiment of countless applications of intuitive algorithms (adaptive UX, actually helpful smart speakers, assistive technologies for the disabled, and self-improving systems in general). For the second point, here's his quote: Overbuilding things the world doesn’t have use for, or is not ready for, tends to end badly. This quote is either misguided or a completely empty tautology, depending on how much leeway you give to "overbuilding". The world definitely has a use for intuitive algorithms, but it definitely doesn't have a use for too many intuitive algorithms -- that's what "too many" means! TBF the "not needed" phrasing was a complete fabrication by NYT, so that's my bad.

tivert 2y ago
> Thanks, “head of stock research”. Definitely a real job that’s not at all made up. I’m sure he did a lot of chin stroking and graph glancing to come to this technical decision! Someone should let all the scientists know that they’re wrong, and intuitive algorithms are “not needed”… Why would you think "head of stock research" is a made up job? It is obvious that investors need to research the stocks the companies they invest in to figure out if they're good investments. > Someone should let all the scientists know that they’re wrong, and intuitive algorithms are “not needed”… It's your problem if you confuse "people trying to hype their AI products" with "scientists" and "not providing the hyped value" with "not needed."
hypeatei 2y ago
I hate to admit it, but we're basically in the same boat as him. White collar workers that sit in air conditioned buildings (or at home) that rely on power+internet all the time to be useful. Plus how much tech workers are actually doing groundbreaking scientific work? Probably less than 1%.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Eh. Many programming jobs are connected to the actual creation of real world value. As in, I can point to actual real life people from every programming job I've had that will say: "Yes, my life was improved by the use of your programs". The fact that I do it using a computer and a climate controlled office isn't really relevant. Stock traders are so abstracted from real human value, that it is not a stretch to say that their jobs do not add value as a whole to the world. If we had half as many people working in financializing the world, capital allocation would not suffer. At least that's my belief.

by bbor 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

> Thanks, “head of stock research”. Definitely a real job that’s not at all made up. I’m sure he did a lot of chin stroking and graph glancing to come to this technical decision! Someone should let all the scientists know that they’re wrong, and intuitive algorithms are “not needed”… Why would you think "head of stock research" is a made up job? It is obvious that investors need to research the stocks the companies they invest in to figure out if they're good investments. > Someone should let all the scientists know that they’re wrong, and intuitive algorithms are “not needed”… It's your problem if you confuse "people trying to hype their AI products" with "scientists" and "not providing the hyped value" with "not needed."

hypeatei 2y ago

I hate to admit it, but we're basically in the same boat as him. White collar workers that sit in air conditioned buildings (or at home) that rely on power+internet all the time to be useful. Plus how much tech workers are actually doing groundbreaking scientific work? Probably less than 1%.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Eh. Many programming jobs are connected to the actual creation of real world value. As in, I can point to actual real life people from every programming job I've had that will say: "Yes, my life was improved by the use of your programs". The fact that I do it using a computer and a climate controlled office isn't really relevant. Stock traders are so abstracted from real human value, that it is not a stretch to say that their jobs do not add value as a whole to the world. If we had half as many people working in financializing the world, capital allocation would not suffer. At least that's my belief.