3 ms·

Any reasonable human would know it was a joke. Unless every algorithmic trading firm is going to publish their algorithms publicly, I think it is unreasonable t

by glesica 12y ago

Any reasonable human would know it was a joke. Unless every algorithmic trading firm is going to publish their algorithms publicly, I think it is unreasonable to expect a company to be held responsible for what an algorithm would think about a statement.

krick 12y ago
Everyone here is forgetting that it isn't even a fact that it was algorithmic decision: it was just journalists guess. And it may be not reasonable to expect a company to be held responsible for what an algorithm would think about a statement in general, but I'd say it's very reasonable to hold a big company responsible for whatever it says or does, when it affects market operating amounts of money some of us can't even imagine. Moreover, strictly speaking there's no such thing as "algorithm thinks" or "algorithm decides". There's a trader: he thinks and decides. If he does it with a dice, or a brain, or a pen and paper, or computer — doesn't matter. As far as I know, machines still are not responsible for what they do: their masters (programmers) are.
- glesica 12y ago
  >...but I'd say it's very reasonable to hold a big company responsible for whatever it says or does, when it affects market operating amounts of money some of us can't even imagine. To me, this seems like a flaw in the financial system. I realize that public companies are held to higher standards of behavior in their communications, but I really feel that the standard should be enforced based on what a reasonable human would conclude, not based on what a currently state-of-the-art computer program would conclude. > If he does it with a dice, or a brain, or a pen and paper, or computer — doesn't matter. I agree with this 100%, but I would then say that a company shouldn't be responsible for a trader deciding poorly. If the trader uses an algorithm that can't handle a well-known custom like April Fools Day, then, to me, that is the trader's problem.

by glesica 12y ago

krick 12y ago

Everyone here is forgetting that it isn't even a fact that it was algorithmic decision: it was just journalists guess. And it may be not reasonable to expect a company to be held responsible for what an algorithm would think about a statement in general, but I'd say it's very reasonable to hold a big company responsible for whatever it says or does, when it affects market operating amounts of money some of us can't even imagine. Moreover, strictly speaking there's no such thing as "algorithm thinks" or "algorithm decides". There's a trader: he thinks and decides. If he does it with a dice, or a brain, or a pen and paper, or computer — doesn't matter. As far as I know, machines still are not responsible for what they do: their masters (programmers) are.

glesica 12y ago
>...but I'd say it's very reasonable to hold a big company responsible for whatever it says or does, when it affects market operating amounts of money some of us can't even imagine. To me, this seems like a flaw in the financial system. I realize that public companies are held to higher standards of behavior in their communications, but I really feel that the standard should be enforced based on what a reasonable human would conclude, not based on what a currently state-of-the-art computer program would conclude. > If he does it with a dice, or a brain, or a pen and paper, or computer — doesn't matter. I agree with this 100%, but I would then say that a company shouldn't be responsible for a trader deciding poorly. If the trader uses an algorithm that can't handle a well-known custom like April Fools Day, then, to me, that is the trader's problem.