Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#31

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mathgenius wrote: post #13

The financial system is a giant message passing algorithm. It is pretty much just a min-sum algorithm [1] whose sole purpose is to answer the question "what should we do?". Anyone who has played around with these algorithms for solving decoding problems knows that they are fabulously powerful. But these message passing algorithms have two weaknesses: (A) When there is more than one solution (B) When there are small l…

Great analysis.

(A) When there is more than one solution

And this is exactly why the concept of a "growing pie" is flawed. Markets generally pool around a single solution versus averaging around multiple and there isn't enough capital (labor or dollars). I think it comes back to power law driving behaviors here and everyone wanting a huge win. So in effect markets look like fixed pies in the short term and the winner is the one that grows the pie.

Trouble with this scheme is, the "pie growth", when it happens, is distributed to a very small group of people who have the ability to make big bets - so it compounds.

In terms of (B) those are basically local maxima tied to (A) so that distribution of growth is chaotic and skewed. So while it might seem like corruption of the network, it actually is a function of the "winner take all" nature of any market in the absence of either consumer/user self regulation or some deus ex machina regulator (government etc...).

Bottom line, it's a problem with how humans act (or fail to act) collectively around information sharing.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#34

Post by saulrh »

zghst wrote: post #25
saulrh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? This is an interview with an author that was conducted specifically to talk about the book and the material in it. What did you expect ? Unrelated, I'd like to see your argument against that particular line. IMO the comparison is an excellent one; its only issue is that the chosen scope ("the financial market") is too small. Corporations and other bureaucratic entities like governments are powerful cross-domain…

Well I'd hope that we'd expect better when an author makes outrageous, nonsensical claims. They are rehashing the book instead of analyzing its claims and assessing its validity. Conveniently, the blame of all the issues are left on the firms instead of the rules of the marketplace, conditions, etc which lead to distortions and structural issues in the market.

I believe that you're looking for a very different piece than this was intended to be. This is essentially a summary of the book. I don't know what the motive was, but it's probably something like "I believe that more people should hear these ideas". The treatment you're requesting would likely qualify as a doctoral thesis. The writers at Wired do not have the time, nor is it likely that they have the expertise, to create that work, nor does the audience or funding exist to make it responsible course of action for the author.

If you wish to engage on the claim itself, instead of spouting unsupported emotional appeals like "outrageous" and "nonsensical", perhaps you could present a rational argument? I suggest considering the belief I noted earlier about the scope of the argument: The label of "artificial intelligence" is valid for more than just financial organizations and market(s).

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#35

Post by andrewla »

My only objection to this is a semantic one -- the word "algorithm" is not being well-served here. The correct word for this sort of thing is "heuristic". The concern isn't that algorithms themselves are incorrect, the concern is that the problem they are trying to solve is a heuristic one, not a formal one.

Saying "let's write an algorithm to improve search results" is meaningless; "let's design and implement a heuristic that improves search results". The algorithmic part of this is how to efficiently implement that heuristic.

I can usually get through articles like this by silently replacing "algorithm" with "heuristic"; the problem arises when some articles attempt to draw equivalencies between "algorithmic" concepts, like running time and space, and "heuristic" concepts, like optimizing for the wrong thing.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#36

Post by sharemywin »

marcosdumay wrote: post #16
fiblye wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming we end up with some society where robots do most of the labor and universal basic income becomes a thing, what do you think 90% of people will do? People need to be occupied, and the typical person isn't an inventor or artist. Furthermore, good luck making kids want to go to school when they see it as pointless since they can just get everything free from the robots while they watch TV. If you think obe…

Well, I think you give people too little credit. Nobody can stand passively watching TV the entire day every day of their lives. But even if you aren't, why would it bother you? If other people want to waste their lives on a coach in front of the TV, what makes this wrong?

Assume that the one thing you do best for a job AI/computers come out and do better. How do you recover from that. Especially, if said AI owners decide you only get a barely livable stipend while they keep most of the profits.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#37

Post by nailer »

sp332 wrote: post #21
zghst wrote: post #11

"why capitalism is like a rogue AI" These people seriously need to take a step back. At some point you cross the bridge between reporting and actively advertising someone's personal views. I can't ever trust or read people who constantly try to push an agenda, it's disingenuous. Even more so, when reporting, engaging in personal exchange without the discussing data and statistics, i.e. the facts, you are just allowin…

It's just a paraphrase. Here's the quote: "Yes, financial markets are the first rogue AI." I didn't read the paraphrase as an endorsement. It's just a description of what was said.

> This one touches on the effects of Uber’s behavior and misbehavior, why capitalism is like a rogue AI, and whether Jeff Bezos might be worth voting for in the next election.

I'd prefer 'Why OReilly believes capitalism is like a rogue AI'. Having Wired repeat OReilly's statement, rather than attribute it to him, makes it seem like they're not critically examining a very significant claim.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#38

Post by peterwwillis »

Have any of these tech "visionaries" (aka millionaires that we pretend have more insight than non-millionaires) considered that at the same time that we've increased our wealth we've also done more damage to our environment? If the cost of increased wealth is decreased habitat, will peak wealth result in the death of nature?

Aside: people are still comparing AI to a machine that feels, and this is so stupid it boggles the mind. The machine that creates paper clips will not kill off anyone who tries to turn it off because it does not have self-preservation, which is a system dependent on fear of death. Machines do not fear, and even if they did they would not fear death, because they have solid state. Bio systems are walking RAM disks.

Algorithms are basically math problems. The financial system and government do not work based on math problems, they work based on emotional instability. Seriously. Both these systems are driven almost entirely by the feelings of humans. They aren't algorithms, they are shitty biological systems that don't make mathematical sense at all.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#40

Post by mathgenius »

KirinDave wrote: post #29
mathgenius wrote: post #13

The financial system is a giant message passing algorithm. It is pretty much just a min-sum algorithm [1] whose sole purpose is to answer the question "what should we do?". Anyone who has played around with these algorithms for solving decoding problems knows that they are fabulously powerful. But these message passing algorithms have two weaknesses: (A) When there is more than one solution (B) When there are small l…

Having worked in the financial industry, your view of it is what we'd call, "50,000" feet. I don't think it reflects reality on the ground, nor does it really reflect how humans in groups make decisions according to research. The message network loop issue isn't even an issue for message passing systems except in the most pathological cases (where it results in an unbounded growth in messages or an infinite delta on…

I'm not saying the finance system doesn't work, it obviously does, and amazingly well. I'm just pointing out the weaknesses of the system, and these weaknesses could easily cause humanity to walk off a cliff.

I also have a finance background. This idea that the system is a kind of message passing is not a "50,000 feet" idea, it actually came to me from writing algorithms to arbitrage markets. There you really are performing message passing (think of forex legs.) It's Dijkstra's algorithm. So this is the view from 50,000 nano-seconds. But I believe it holds for many other scales. Plenty of people walk into the supermarket and buy the product with minimum cost. Yes? How is this a view from "50,000 feet"? But obviously we are not just min-sum automata: we are all free agents, and so on.

> how humans in groups make decisions according to research

Well this is obviously a huge topic.

> message network loop issue isn't even an issue for message passing systems except in the most pathological cases

I totally disagree with this. Short loops completely screwup message passing.

Post reply on HN