I genuinely disagree. It seems to me like the planet is overpopulated, that there is massively unfavourable bias in terms of who reproduces the most and that, imperfect a proxy for intelligence as it may be, lack of common sense of the magnitude in question is a good enough signal to indicate lack of intelligence, which is itself a decent proxy to indicate lack of contribution to society (intelligent does not imply high value, but stupid implies low value).
The notion that human life is precious is a remnant of times when child bearing was risky, life expectancy was short, agriculture was a bunch of mules and a bunch of peasants and medicine was not scientific and we had massive shortages for manual workers.
These days, if we start to lighten up a bit in the lower half of IQ distribution it might be much more of a blessing than a curse.
This sort of sensationalist title and article are a great part of the reason why models are nerfed by training them to output absurd disclaimers.
Nobody should expect that AI can be relied upon for anything where the cost of an error is catastrophic. This should be obvious, but if it's not, it should be stated ONCE before one gains access to an interface. After that, losing anyone who fails to take notice and suffers as a result is no longer a catastrophe.
This paper is rubbish. Trading is ultimately a partial information, sequential game with an unknown number of participants whose payoff functions (and utilities) are also unknown. Could the market be closer to being efficient if P=NP? Likely. Does P=NP imply efficiency? Not at all.
I think that the FAA will demand that Amazon runs the test program without hiccups for a while before considering a more realistic test, such as one with the drone outside of the pilot's line of sight, or a flight with bad weather conditions. All in all, it will likely be at least three years before this is rolled out to any actual customers.
Too much noise - this means nothing. This is exactly the reason why serious investors give fund managers money not just based on performance, but on process.
It's not really that easy. The spread is still not zero and you may still get bad fills if you are slow or if the latency is high enough (assuming that you are taking liquidity).
FX brokers like LMAX, while still targeting retail investors, make money (almost) exclusively on commissions, rather than adjusting the spreads.
Many liquidity provision strategies are also infeasible given the unreliability of the APIs available and the high fees, and in general many intraday strategies that work in other markets and would work with lower commission for bitcoins are devastated by such high fees.
As for stocks, if your volumes are decent, trading costs are negligible. With bitcoin exchanges, that does not seem to be the case...
What if they acquired a license? We would have come full circle, proving the idiocy of this system and, implicitly, that the intelligence of those who administer it is quite limited at best.
The destruction would be by the lack of trust. Since there is nothing but supply and demand considerations keeping bitcoin's value high, guess what would happen if demand were to vanish
The destruction would be by the lack of trust. Since there is nothing but supply and demand considerations keeping bitcoin's value high, guess what would happen if demand were to vanish
I have yet to see it being pointed out that none of the encryption in use for these cryptocurrencies will necessarily remain extremely hard to break for long. A good question is: what if bitcoin or something alike does effectively gain traction and one day a math breakthrough (or a computational tech one) make the crypto weak? How much wealth will be destroyed then? Who would you turn to for help?
Our system is not perfect, but taking central banks out of the loop is not a way to improve it. It would be much more useful to find ways to push down financial transaction and currency exchange costs.
I know of at least 5 firms who would have the means to make a big profit in a rather stealth way and all of the infrastructure needed to minimize execution risk (to the point that it may be negligible)... Just because you cannot do it or that it is hard for you, do not assume it cannot be done or that it is (as) hard for everybody...
As someone who lives in Kendall Square and studies at MIT, I would say that, in spite of the amount of brains, Cambridge and the whole Boston area are a terrible place to live, with few opportunities for recreation and a horrible weather...
That code is a recipe for getting hurt. Here are a few points:
- Return is not everything. More informative performance metrics are Sharpe ratio (a sort of reward/risk measure) and information ratio. Both of the above have ridiculously low values in this case.
- Another thing that matters is the distribution of returns. If you have plotted this and still see nothing wrong, you are really better off doing something else. With numbers like these, chances are will be out of cash much sooner than you will hit a good month. And even after you have hit a good month, what happens when you hit a bad one?
- Beta: essentially, when the algo does well, it is mostly because of significant overexposure to the market. At this point, I would much rather lever up and buy SPY than trade using this thing.
- Predictability and risk management: ok, so you have tested this on historical data. What are the cases in which this would misbehave? After all, it is optimization, so there may be inputs for which this gives very undesirable results. How would you notice? (hint: you have no risk management in your code!)
The bottom line is that, if you ever want to put some money where your mouth is, you would have way better chances at doing well if you learned some basic finance rather than treating the markets as a black box (no matter how creative you can be). At least, you will be able to evaluate appropriately whether you are doing well or not.