Would you not then also copy the investments? Or are you trying to inverse the trades by an unpredictable time factor reasoning that thanks to AI the underlying stock is over- or underpriced?
A lot of algorithmic trading is short-term, essentially trying to guess what other parties may be selling or buying so that you can front-run them and then collect a fee. Kinda like ticket scalping, except we accept it and have a retro-justification for why it's good ("improving liquidity").
Or, in the best case, you're trying to mine signals few days before earnings or some other big story and bet on the directional outcome of that.
Fully-algorithmic long-term trading is of dubious benefit simply because that's driven to a much greater extent by geopolitics and macroeconomic trends, unforeseen scandals, successful product launches, and so on. As an example, you can believe that AR / VR is the future; I don't disagree. And in 2013, you might have inferred that Google is working on a revolutionary miniature AR headset. But you would not have made money if you bet on that turning out to be a hit. So even if you had a way to automate this bet, it would not have been a good bet.
I was under the impression that front-running was something that happened in the span of seconds (or milliseconds), not a timeframe compatible with LLM inference time.
By which reason can they cap the knowledge workers displacement at 39.7% in the extreme case? Maybe they want to reason that without robots its impossible to replace the last 22% but even specialised devices would be enough in the worst case.
I think in the worst case knowledge work will go to the capital rich 1% as legal representative for the companies and their shareholders.
And with robotics all 99% of the workforce could be gone. Because AI does not need to be perfect it only needs to be cheaper and good enough.
Looks to my like an effort to pivot from an AI embedded Browser after the ChatGPT Atlas release into a local system Browser.
I still don't see the advantage I get for my local system? Nearly all of the actions on the demo page are doable with chatGpt in one or three interactions.
The big difference UX wise between chatbots and Surf is that Surf is built entirely on editable documents that you can mold / craft into an output (vs chat).
We actually had a chatbot, but our explorations showed that notes were a more effective in many cases!
An example of local data is that "Applets" made in Surf can be opened / updated from your local code editor, they're just HTML files.
Umm -- not being tied to ChatGPT? Like, that's huge. I personally do not consider consistently using any AI tool unless it has a local option. I've been air-quotes "paranoid" about things like this my whole life and it's served me QUITE well.
This vulnerability comes from allowing the AI to read untrusted data (usually documentation) from the Internet. For LLMs the boundary between "code" and "data" isn't as clear as it used to be since they will follow instructions written in human language.
I would describe it as blockly, as if we visualise the sound wave it seems to be without peaks and cut upwards and downwards producing a metallic boxy echo.
I my opinion the author refers to a LLMs inability to create a inner world, a world model.
That means it does not build a mirror of a system based on its interactions.
It just outputs fragments of world models it was build one and tries to give you a string of fragments that should match to the fragment of your world model that you provided through some input method.
It can not abstract the code base fragments you share it can not extend them with details using the model of the whole project.
You place malicious binaries outside the helm directory. Helm will now execute malicious code through the helm chart pointing outside the helm directory.
Don't I have already bigger problems if you have access to my file system to place there malicious code?
Is the danger here that one can get an execute permission? But if you can manipulate my helm chart why can you not also place the malicious code in the helm directory?
Yeah, there is a rather strong "downloading and executing arbitrary code from the Internet may lead to execution of arbitrary code" kind of vibe there.
I was sketching a sci-fi book idea in a similar tone with the following tones:
- what if AI took over
- what if the laws and legalities that allowed AI to take over bloodlessly just through an economic win force them to have a human representative to take legally binding actions in our society
- what if there developed a spectrum of individuality and cluster for different ai entities leading into a formation of processing guilds with AI agents. Limiting themselves in their individual time to a factor 10 Human Processing Speed for easier Human / AI interaction and to enable one to share the perception of their human representative without overloading them
I was thinking something similar, but much earlier along this timeline: what if the consultants that work for lobby groups that propose certain bills already use AI to write proposed laws? E.g. to make long, omnibus-style laws that very few of the people voting on it (or the public) actually read?
How will that erode laws that are undesirable to AI companies? Does AI take over, only because we no longer want to spend the effort governing ourselves?
Will AI companies (for example) end up providing/certifying these 'human representatives'? Will it be useful, or just a new form of rent-seeking? Who watches the watchmen, etc ?
I think it would make an interesting short story or novel!
That is from the viewpoint of the top 10% earners if you look at the european market or small / local business than you are looking at people doing the job of multiple departments and getting blamed if something does not work or for their salary if everything works.
And the salary is most of the time lower than anyone from the HR or Marketing department whose job if you are unlucky you also have to do because the tools they use are too complicated for them.
And if take the freelancer / remote work market into consideration everyone wants to pass all the work to the lowest bidder and some of them get lucky with skilled workers whose salary may be in the median considering their location after substracting the share of the middleman.
Lifetime deals on AppSumo don’t seem to me like a silver bullet for growth. Considering products with free trials, or even those that start as free and continue with a free core, struggle with initial growth.
Lifetime deals are also only compatible with software products that have negligible costs.
reply