I worked many years as a quant. Strategies based in unpublished findings tend to be very profitable. But once that info becomes widely available it is just a matter of time until getting diminished returns. Thus there is a high incentive to not publicise.
We went from CLIs to GUIs to touchscreens and we will see more and more of MCBs, multimodal chatbot, where the interaction is done by text, voice, maybe even other on the future. AI is just the “software” that enables those interfaces, not the interface per se.
consultants spouting industry-standard slop, which means now everyone is on the same platform -- which we've just down doesn't really cover their butts.
and to be fair, having some sort of tool like that isn't necessarily a bad thing, the problem is when the tool gets pushed without testing and breaks the internet.
In what extent you see the output being incredible?
At appearance the output _seems_ incredible but once one starts pushing for more or requiring consistency for production, it requires a tremendous effort to put in place or it is simply not possible.
I have also a few decades in the field, especially regarding automation of knowledge processes, so genuinely interesting in getting other viewpoints.
No matter how you minimize drawdown from a backward perspective, there is a reasonable chance there will be an event in the future where you will have a 50pct drawdown.
Many of these strategies stopped working in 2008 because the markets became too crowded with players exploring them. Especially the ones that have low drawdowns attract a lot of competition. The writing was already in the wall with the quant bloodbath of 2007.
