CRITICISM: The Computer has no bias or imput?
Which is impossible: a computer needs information or facts to make decisions. Unfortunately, ‘facts’ are often skewed by humans for personal or political purposes. Saying such, however, is to your advantage. If the computer is wrong, you are guiltless. If correct, you benefit as the creator of the computer. Any frequent reader of your knows that you predict every outcome and can always point to a successful one.
REPLY: You completely fail to grasp the difference between AI and standard analysis. If there were ANY human input, then I might as well retire and say you are on your own, thanks for the good times. You assume “facts” are based on human analysis and selection of what events to put in and leave out. That can never be a valid model. People act in anticipation of events before they happen. So just how do you create a fundamental input of mights and maybes?
By stepping back and allowing the computer to analyze, I have learned far more from it than I could teach the computer.
Personally, I have had a good nose for trading. But I am not infallible because I am human. Whenever I have thought something might happen, it is the computer who is correct. The computer has proven me wrong plenty of times.
Any errors I make are confined to interpretation, but your comment proves a point I have long made. There is absolutely no way everyone would ever follow the model. There will always be people who disagree for a host of reasons.
Artificial intelligence has taken a giant leap forward into cognitive machine learning. We are well beyond the simplistic computer programs that were expert systems masquerading as AI.
We have crossed that threshold and embarked on a journey of creating computers that can self-generate. It can adapt and learn like a child. We reproduce ourselves and our children look like the parents to a large degree. This is the process of self-referral. Our computer writes its own code adapting to events and growing like a child expanding its knowledge base. It is constantly learning. Perhaps one day it will become perfect. What it cannot do is become some evil mind that then rules the world. Movies are based upon a theory that we possess no soul. We become self-aware only because of the vast number of connections in our brain. These computers in movies are not programmed to have emotions, they just evolve. Nice theory for movies. However, I do not subscribe to such theories for I would not know how to go about creating emotion inside a program that was real nor would I see a purpose for creating a machine that would get angry with the person at the keyboard.
Your skepticism reveals you fail to understand the advances in technology all around you. Even Google learns what you like and tailors advertisements targeted to your interests. It is not a person nor can it possess emotions. But it will learn from what you select and record that creating a database on your preferences.
If any human input were skewing fundamentals, it would be worthless. I could never be a valuable tool under such circumstances. Understanding how chess pieces move allowed IBM to beat the best chess players. The documentary film Man vs. The Machine was about the famous chess match between Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov. He beat the computer at first. When the final match took place and Deep Blue beat Kasparov, IBM’s shares rose 15% and they would not grant him a rematch.
Sorry, you do not understand this journey in technology and assume there has to be some human input of facts. What I have learned is the computer can forecast even war because those who possess inside information begin to move their wealth. The computer knows nothing about who or why they are doing what they are doing. When I stood up in London in 1998 and warned that the computer gave Russia a matter of weeks before its monetary system would collapse, it made the from page of the London Financial Times. When it happened, that is when the CIA called for their eyes opened and they realized a computer could forecast accurately the rise and fall of nations. This became a matter of national security to them. It accomplished that by monitoring capital flows. There was no such “facts” interpreted by any human to input. There would be no worth to any model that required such a scheme.
Granted, there are those who really despise whatever I do because it upsets their comfortable vision of the world and how that should work. They want to believe in Rothschilds controlling everything in perfection for them. Sorry, but the biggest of the biggest have come to us as well and they would not do that if they were in control. This is a complex system that NOBODY can control. They have but brief periods of delusion to think they have it all. Such dreams evaporate quickly.
The only reason the computer tends to be more right than wrong is rather simplistic. When you are tracking the entire world, from markets, politics, and capital flows, if you are right one on segment, you have to be right across the board. Everything is connected. Open your eyes. AI is taking over everything and I would rather have a computer be the judge in any court. Computers do not make mistakes, have bias, or see the world only be a predetermined conclusion — humans do.