Note bene: Please don't downvote these kinds of comments. I have no ties to AndrewKemendo, his friend, or his friend's venture, but I greatly appreciate that HN is one of the few forums where users are generally encouraged to promote personal projects or projects of friends/acquaintances as long as they are 1) on topic, and 2) tastefully done (ie, don't spam a post with multiple promotional comments) and 3) any ties disclosed.
This post observed all 3 of these general guidelines, and as a result, I got to learn about a very interesting project.
So particularly if you're relatively new to HN, and just got the downvote button, please let these posts stand as is, and don't downvote. HN isn't like many online communities in that moderate amounts of self-promotion are OK here.
How is a link to an "AI hedge fund" not relevant to a discussion about "Robo-advisers"? Seems like nitpicky semantics to me. I was genuinely interested anyway.
It's not nitpicking. The two are very different. Hedge Funds (and other proprietary firms) using AI-training software to automatically trade are attempting to generate Alpha, are run as a separate fund, and are available only to the rich. Robo advisers generally attempt to manage a diversified portfolio that performs in line with the market, trade in the customer's own account, and are available to everyone.
I would have preferred some sort of comment by the poster as to how they relate, for background. Or perhaps, how one is better than the other. But just throwing a link out there because it's semi-relevant to the topic being discussed, even with full disclosure, seems like a very spammy thing to do.
Good point. I threw it out there cause I was multi-tasking, and busy but thought it would be interesting.
I can see how it would be spammy, though considering that it's not a product available to people it wouldn't really benefit them in the same way as other products.
Either way, the relevance is that "robo-advisory" services will likely fall to AI systems sooner rather than later. That these "robo-systems" are taking off at all, means that people are comfortable handing over those decisions knowingly to machines. As they get better, it would be irresponsible to have a human managed fund - in the same way it will be irresponsible to get into a human driven car.
There are engineers working on improving Google Search. There will be engineers working on improving self-driving cars. There are also people working on making improvements to chess-playing bots and Go-playing bots that play the game far better than they could.
Similarly I expect there will always be people looking for ways to improve trading performance in the stock market, even if the strategies are automated and they're making optimization decisions multiple steps removed from the actual buy or sell decision. The nature of the job changes, but the goal remains the same.
But that's professional trading. The kind of trading needed for personal finance seems much less technical and could more easily be automated, since most people aren't looking to try out experimental stock trading strategies with their own money. If machine learning gets applied I think it would be more about understanding and communicating with the customer better.
Artificial general intelligence certainly exists --that just means a learning model that doesn't have specific rules for any domain--, it just isn't very good in every area yet.
Yep, this is what I meant by my (now downvoted) post.
The foundation exists, what is/has been promised does not yet exist. If this group actually had an AGI, we'd be having an entirely different conversation (about the societal ramifications, mostly likely).
If AGI exists, it isn't on par with human level yet. No AI has reached the human level of intelligence yet. I think that is the argument that was made on it.
Many people define AGI as human level intelligence, and we're supposed to get there by 2020 or 2030 or so on when computers reach faster speeds.
[1]http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-rise-of-the-artificially-in...