it won't be long before we hearing more headlines like: "AI beats top 10 hedge fund managers" to "AI run hedge fund blows up due to black swan event" regardless it's an incredible feat. It really casts questions into what our edge as humans are which is slowly disappearing and we didn't even need to put a brain in a jar and hook it up to a computer....it's deep learning reinforced algorithms that is appearing to outl…
>"AI beats top 10 hedge fund managers"
Renaissance Technologies already is one of the top hedge funds in the world and it's fully automated.
Sure it is. Much like most developers don't spend their time reading on computing science papers to do their job, I question why such academic rigour is to be demanded from somebody trying to capitalize on the arbitrage opportunity. Math is good but my time won't be best used if I have to learn calculus all over again just to begin understanding the linguo. Rather have a generic model of what to use and when, hire th…
How do you suggest you take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity if you have 0 informational insight?
Because the arbitrage opportunity isn't present in the academic papers but at a higher level involving business problems.
I say this is an arbitrage opportunity because AI is essentially commoditizing human intelligence. It didn't take much brains for people to realize cars could do away with horses. You don't need to understand how a car works down to the formula. It's enough to view it as a black box and still know all the outputs and constraints associated with it in order to orchestrate capital that allows you to seize the business opportunity.
Again, the arbitrage is buying something for cheap and immediately selling it at a higher price...if you can't understand why a deep level understanding of the academia is not necessary in order to capture the opportunity then less competition for me which is great.
Do a search for "long term" in online poker and you'll find that the suggestion for players to determine their level of play based on that "long term" is something like one million hands. That's running 4 tables for full days of poker over a long period of time. For sure it's playing more than 4 players. The probability space of poker is such that 4 competitors isn't going to tell you much. And defining "top" is diff…
They played in pairs using mirrored hands and did equity splits when all in. This eliminated not all, but a large amount of variance.
Because this is the language of the domain. Much like code is the language of programming. This isn't academic rigor or lingo. This is how things work. To me, your comment reads similarly to "Much like most business people don't spend their time reading code to do the job, I question why such academic rigor is to be demanded by someone who is translating business requirements into database operations".
I think we are after different things. My goal is not to understand the underlying technology at the academic level but just enough to make money by utilizing the people that do, just like any good capitalist. You don't need to be an oil rig worker to understand where the opportunity lies is what I'm saying. It's possible to understand systems from a blackbox point of view and still be able to exploit them. Afterall,…
I don't know why you expect to get ahead by hiring others to do your thinking for you. If you don't have a basic understanding of the technology you're hiring people to implement, they'll just pull the wool over your eyes, sell you something that doesn't work and make away with your money.
I like your posts, but you're misinformed on this topic. The pros selected are among the best HUNL players in the world right now. Offering the top winners in a separate variant not only misinterprets how different the games are but also falsely equivocates being the best with making the most money. If someone asked you who the best mobile app developers were in the world, your list should comprise solely of mobile a…
You make a fair point. I clearly didn't know what I was talking about. I edited my original post to reflect that.
No worries, thanks for taking the time to listen. Have a great day
> "...academic rigor..." "...calculus.." Dude, I'm not even asking you for anything that difficult here, how would you like it if I walked in and said "well, I don't need to learn any programing, my time is better spent magically making it work".
I found calculus and academia generally very difficult. I'm happy to know that you don't suffer from this terrible affliction which makes studying difficult. You don't need to know programming if you understand your workers and they understand it enough to convey to you the time & resource constraints. I have a million dollars for this project. What are the features and functions that will maximize my returns? Hire a…
I think people are just saying that if you don't undertstand the technology a little bit yourself you'll never know who to hire. Maybe somebody looks like they know what they're talking about, but they don't. Maybe somebody really knows what they're talking about but they can't put that across very well. Maybe someome is simply unscrupulous and wants to milk you dry and will dazzle you with charts and graphs that they know you don't quite understand.
It's, like, inadvisable, to leave yourself vulnerable like that.
Do a search for "long term" in online poker and you'll find that the suggestion for players to determine their level of play based on that "long term" is something like one million hands. That's running 4 tables for full days of poker over a long period of time. For sure it's playing more than 4 players. The probability space of poker is such that 4 competitors isn't going to tell you much. And defining "top" is diff…
From the article:
> A poker-playing AI has beaten four human players in a marathon match lasting 20 days.
> "AI run hedge fund blows up due to black swan event" Knight Capital, 2012: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-02/knight-sh...
I believe the poster meant a machine-learning system blowing up (catastrophic trading loss) due to a black swan event that the system wasn't trained to deal with. Knight's blow-up was a process/sysops failure, not due to their strategies going wonky. [As a side note I believe their core strategies were human-analyst designed, not ML based, but I could be wrong.]
> immune to bluffing There's no such thing. An algorithm playing straight hand value based on probabilities is more susceptible to bluffing, not less. And this is no limit, where a single hand can swing all the chips. Any poker AI that isn't a loser is going to have some pretty sophisticated modeling of the opponent.
Having a poker AI that plays deterministic strategies is an obviously terrible idea, for the precise reason you mention. It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed strategies). I think that the optimal mixed strategy for each hand is immune to bluffing (over many hands it will have larger expected winnings against a bluffer). If that wasn't t…
It would be surprising to me if a completely deterministic strategy wasn't within some very close margin of an optimal strategy. For example, if you think you should raise with JJ 1/3 of the time and call the rest of the time in some spot, then you can raise JcJd and JhJs and call with the other jacks. This can give your opponent slightly more information about your range in some cases (for example, if they hold a J themselves), and of course you can only approximate correct frequencies, but it's highly unlikely (in my opinion at least) that such a deterministic strategy would be terrible.