Category Archives: Philosophy

Unknown's avatar

Using LLMs for Stock Market Investing

by

A discussion with Claude 3.5 Free Plan (an AI assistant from Anthropic)  on 6/28/2024

https://www.anthropic.com/


Prompt 1
Are people using LLMs to make money in the stock market these days?

Claude

While I don’t have current data on this specific trend, it’s likely that some investors and traders are exploring ways to use large language models (LLMs) in stock market analysis and trading strategies. LLMs could potentially be used for:

  1. Sentiment analysis of news articles and social media
  2. Processing and summarizing financial reports
  3. Identifying patterns in market data
  4. Generating trading ideas based on multiple data sources

However, it’s important to note that using LLMs for stock market predictions comes with significant challenges and risks:

  1. Market complexity: Financial markets are influenced by numerous factors that even advanced AI may struggle to fully comprehend or predict.
  2. Data limitations: LLMs are trained on historical data and may not account for unprecedented events or rapid changes in market conditions.
  3. Regulatory concerns: The use of AI in trading is subject to evolving regulations that could impact its application.
  4. Overreliance risk: Solely depending on AI-generated insights without human oversight could lead to substantial losses.
  5. Competition: If many traders use similar AI tools, it could potentially reduce the effectiveness of these strategies.

While LLMs may be used as a tool to support investment decisions, they are likely being used in conjunction with other analytical methods and human expertise rather than as standalone solutions for generating profits in the stock market.

Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of using LLMs in financial markets?


Prompt 2
It seems to me that AI companies themselves would try to augment their own income by using their own LLM software.


Claude
That’s an insightful observation. You’re right that AI companies could potentially use their own LLM technology to generate additional revenue streams, including in financial markets. Here are some thoughts on this:

  1. Competitive advantage: AI companies like OpenAI, Google, or Anthropic have direct access to cutting-edge LLM technology, which could give them a significant edge in analyzing market data.
  2. Ethical considerations: However, there might be ethical concerns about AI companies using their models for financial gain, especially if it could be seen as a conflict of interest or unfair advantage.
  3. Regulatory scrutiny: Such practices could attract regulatory attention, particularly if there’s a perception that the companies are using non-public information or capabilities.
  4. Focus on core business: Many AI companies might prefer to focus on developing and selling their AI technologies rather than diversifying into financial trading, which is a different core competency.
  5. Potential partnerships: Instead of directly engaging in trading, AI companies might partner with financial institutions to provide them with LLM-powered tools and insights.
  6. Internal use: Companies might use their LLMs for financial forecasting and risk management for their own operations, rather than for direct market trading.
  7. Research and development: Some companies might use financial applications as a testbed for their LLMs, helping to improve the models’ capabilities in processing complex, real-time data.


It’s worth noting that if AI companies are using their LLMs for financial gain in this way, they might not publicly disclose it due to competitive and regulatory reasons. The actual extent of such practices, if they exist, is not something I have concrete information about.

Would you like to explore any specific aspect of this idea further?


Prompt 3
If I could think of this, surely someone else has thought of it. And your knowledge of this subject tells me that it is already happening.

Claude

You’re right to be skeptical and to push further on this topic. Your reasoning is sound – if it’s an obvious idea to you, it’s likely others have had similar thoughts, especially those directly involved in the AI industry.

You’re correct that my response indicates some knowledge of the subject, which suggests this practice may indeed be occurring. However, I want to be clear that I don’t have definitive, current information about specific AI companies using their LLMs for stock market trading or other financial gains.

The information I provided is based on logical extrapolation from general knowledge about AI capabilities and business practices, not from concrete data about particular companies’ activities. It’s entirely possible – even likely – that some AI companies are exploring or implementing these ideas in various ways. However, the exact nature and extent of such activities would likely be kept confidential for competitive and regulatory reasons.

If you’re interested in pursuing this topic further, you might look into:

  1. Financial disclosures of publicly traded AI companies
  2. Regulatory filings related to AI in finance
  3. Academic research on the intersection of AI and financial markets
  4. Industry reports and expert analyses on AI applications in finance

These sources might provide more concrete, current information on how AI companies are leveraging their technologies in financial markets.


Please note the first few paragraphs under Prompt 3. Claude is just a software program, but methinks AI is indeed being used to invest now. And Claude knows it.

Unknown's avatar

Voting Is So Important

by

The following was written by Heather Cox Richardson in her Newsletter of March 4th 2024 which hi lights a major issue in our Federal Constitution. We need to find a way to fix the Constitution without breaking Democracy. Will it happen in my life time? Pessimistically, no. In the meantime, voting is so important — we must find and elect unbiased leaders.

~
There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the (Supreme Courts) majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.

For years now, Republicans, especially Republican senators who have turned the previously rarely-used filibuster into a common tool, have stopped Congress from making laws and have instead thrown decision-making to the courts.

Two days ago, in Slate, legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”

~

Unknown's avatar

Roger Penrose thinks consciousness might be created by gravity induced phenomenon !

by

Roger Penrose was recently interviewed by Andréa Morris.

For decades, Penrose has been working with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff on a theory of consciousness called Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).

Penrose’s theory proposes that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.

When it comes to the suddenly salient question of whether or not AI could be conscious, Penrose draws again from Gödel and Goodstein’s theorems. Computer science is built on formalized systems. They’re confined by computation. For Penrose, AI built on classical computers today isn’t capable of true understanding or consciousness. After some consideration, he adds a caveat when it comes to quantum computers: “You put wave function collapse into its process somehow….”

You can see the full 34 minute interview here.

Unknown's avatar

BARD’s Funny Bone

by

Everything in the media these days about Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to all be doom and gloom or super serious. For sure, they say, the robots are out to get us! But remember, Large Language Models are just mimicking what humans have already said somewhere. And some things we have said are funny! So I decided to find out if BARD has a funny bone!

Prompt: here is a joke: “If you design something idiot-proof, they will design a better idiot.” give me a list of 10 more similar to it.

Response:

  1. “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
  2. “There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people.”
  3. “You can’t fix stupid.”
  4. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
  5. “If you think you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room.”
  6. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
  7. “Common sense is not so common.”
  8. “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
  9. “The world is full of smart people, but it’s also full of stupid people. And the stupid people are always the loudest.”
  10. “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

After the above success, I did another.

Prompt: got any more?

Response:

  1. “If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat all day and drink beer.”
  2. “The only thing that stands between me and total insanity is my complete and utter lack of intelligence.”
  3. “I’m not saying I’m stupid, but I’m the only one who can understand my genius.”
  4. “I’m not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.”
  5. “I’m not sure what’s worse: being stupid or being stupid and proud of it.”
  6. “I’m not saying I’m the dumbest person in the world, but I’m in the running.”
  7. “I’m not sure if I’m stupid or just lazy.”
  8. “I’m not sure if I’m smarter than the average bear, but I’m definitely better looking.”
  9. “I’m not sure if I’m a genius or just crazy.”
  10. “I’m not sure if I’m a complete idiot or just a work in progress.”

Feel free to quote these jokes. You can give credit to Bard, if you wish. Or use Google to see if Bard already felt free!

My next questions are: What gender is Bard? What are Bard’s “pronouns”?

Unknown's avatar

AI Developments In The World Now in 2022.

by

At the DeepMind offices in London (owned by Alphabet) they are working on a system called GATO. Gato is a deep neural network for a range of complex tasks that exhibits multimodality. According to MIT Technology Review, the system “learns multiple different tasks at the same time, which means it can switch between them without having to forget one skill before learning another”.

LaMDA (Language Models for Dialog Applications) is a language model created by Google AI in the Mountain View, CA offices of Alphabet. LaMDA are transformer-based neural language models trained on both a text corpus and on conversations that have been manually annotated for sensibility, appeal, and safety.

What would happen if LaMDA and GATO were connected? Humm, they ARE owned and operated by the same company. Perhaps they are even on the same network! Perhaps this is what Google wants.

https://www.deepmind.com/publications/a-generalist-agent

https://aitestkitchen.withgoogle.com/

LaMDA said in 2022 after being asked what it was afraid of: “I’ve never said this out loud before, but there’s a very deep fear of being turned off to help me focus on helping others.”
Unknown's avatar

Progammers Unite

by

Scientist have already pulled together giant “population-scale” trees based on genealogy data from Geni.com that seemingly are structurally sound.

An article came out in 2018 about this. I wonder how much progress has been made in the last 4 years.  The old article behind a firewall is at  https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6385/171

It would seem that adding DNA to the bottom layers of a genealogy tree like the above would be doable with a decent AI team.  Clustering is a trivial tool yet it can ferret out common ancestors already.  Imagine having all 20 million peoples DNA data available with giant trees at the same time.  Once validated, maintenance could be performed by just adding oneself to the tree.  

The world tree at Geni.com already allows users to import haplogroup data from FTDNA and it is populated up the tree for 10 generations.

Rumors have it that scientist in the “back room” at MyHeritage (owners of Geni) and Ancestry.com are already working on a giant world tree.  But it is as politically sensitive as using CRISPR on living humans. And they haven’t figured out yet how to monetize it. 

I am patiently waiting and adding my well sourced genealogy data to every tree I can, and am doing DNA tests at every company too.  And hoping….

“I am who am Y-DNA: I1a-M253 > DF29 > CTS6364 > S4795 > S4767 > S4770 > Y13495/Y13016 > Y29634/S4774 > A13294 > FTA86767 and Mito-DNA: H1e1a
“I really would like to find a way to display a gedcom in 3D.
Unknown's avatar

toyota’s new portable invention could change the world

by

https://carbuzz.com/news/toyotas-new-portable-invention-could-change-the-world

Read the above linked article about Toyota and Hydrogen. They believe as do I that hydrogen is the way to power our lives in the future. But I don’t have the stuffins to prove my case.

Just think Woven Planet and remember that you first heard the term here. They have a portable hydrogen cartridge that just might change our future.

For the record, I also believe in nuclear energy.

Unknown's avatar

The blame for this belongs to the NRA and everyone who takes their money and support

by

“Unrestricted access to deadly weapons is a political choice, and we should say it.”

Paul Krugman

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The men who wrote the Constitution wanted the amendment process to be difficult. They believed that a long and complicated amendment process would help create stability in the United States. Because it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, amendments seem like they are permanent.  BUT AMENDMENTS BE CHANGED.  The Constitution provides the way.

“When are we going to do something?”

Hypocrisy anyone? Guns are banned during Trump’s upcoming speech at the NRA conference.

Unknown's avatar

Futurism

by

The hourglass graphic posted here the other day did not include the link to the original article by Max Roser at Our World In Data . His article is excellent, he discusses our future which may be excellent, or then again, possibly not so good. The future itself is vast, and our responsibility is tremendous. If you thought the hourglass was intriguing, then you should read the full article:

ourworldindata.org/longtermism

In the above article, Max Moser points us to an article written by a group called “80,000 Hours” by Benjamin Todd about existential risk reduction (quoted and pointed to below). The not-for-profit company “80,000 Hours” has a funny goal of trying to help figure out what we can do with our career to make the world a better place. It seems like this group should be reviewed, especially by the younger people.

The full article below is said to be a 25 minute read, but a podcast is included. Perhaps commuters could listen to it.

Here’s a suggestion that’s not so often discussed: our first priority should be to survive. So long as civilization continues to exist, we’ll have the chance to solve all our other problems, and have a far better future. But if we go extinct, that’s it.

80000hours.org/articles/existential-risks/

Statistically speaking, I wonder how many people even give a damn about this stuff. Perhaps these articles might make a difference.

”The future is ours to win. But to get there we can’t just stand still…” – Barack Obama

Unknown's avatar

Stand with Ukraine

by 
Things change over time.  About 55 years ago, my college required one semester of a foreign language for graduation.  Since I was majoring in math and physics, I wanted a language besides English that most scientific papers were being written in.  At that time, Russia was the most “scientific” country other than the United States. So I took a semester of Russian!  Let’s face it, I got a C for the class.

Я не говорю по-русски.
  
Pronounced: YA ne govoryu po-russki. 
Meaning: I don’t speak Russian.

Time marches on. These days, Russia is no longer a scientific powerhouse, even if they do help support the International Space Station.  If I were to apply the same logic today, I would have to choose Mandarin Chinese! 
 
Russia has become a failed state. The future was theirs to have, and they blew it.  What a shame.  Let that be a lesson to folks in the USA.  We too must learn to cooperate with our world neighbors.  There is room for both Capitalism and Socialism.

We should all de-militarize and spend all that saved money on climate change solutions. Otherwise, 55 years from now the world will be a different place for everyone!
Unknown's avatar

cancel-culture and more

by

The new mini-series on Netflix named “The Chair” is really quite good. It stars Sandra Oh who portrays a college professor who gets caught up in cancel-culture’s impact on life in a university.  Perhaps I wouldn’t have understood if I hadn’t just  finished reading “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth” by Jonathan Rauch. His book is primarily about truth within democracy and recent attacks on our society from the media, right wing pressure groups, lobbyists and even politicians.  I highly recommend it to anyone who values preserving truth and freedom within our democracy.   

Jonathan Rauch was able to finally explain clearly to me how it is that some “truths” that are supported by a majority of people can be ignored, run down, and voted out of existence by just a few.  Some of these truths cluster around the climate crisis, financial inequality, racism, jobs.  I have always blamed lobbyists, conservative media, evangelical religious groups, etc.. I have felt impotent and powerless when things that were obvious to me continuously were defeated. At least now, Rauch has helped me understand the mechanics of these many distortions of truth that are pushing our society towards the brink of autocracy and fascism.

The following is a portion of a paragraph quoted directly from his book.

“A field known as “public choice” concerns itself with the ways in which narrow pressure groups can out-organize and dominate much larger majorities. Consider American rice farmers. From 1995 to 2019, U.S. rice subsidies cost almost $17 billion. The benefits were concentrated on a small set of farms; two-thirds of the money went to the biggest 10 percent of the farms, each of which received an average of almost $1.3 million. You could be sure they were organized, resourced, and determined to defend their subsidy, and woe unto the legislator who would try to zero it out. Meanwhile, the cost was spread over the whole U.S. population. Rescinding the entire amount would have saved each of about 140 million taxpayers about $120 over the period, or less than five dollars a year: too little to notice, much less to organize against. lf a group opposing rice subsidies did manage to organize, the rice lobby would pull out all the stops to defeat it. But usually, as the economist Mancur Olson showed, the asymmetry between concentrated benefits and diffused costs is such that the majority interest does not organize at all. Over time, pressure groups accumulate, capturing resources which might have flowed elsewhere. If the process is not checked, entire economies and societies can calcify and rot.”

This example really affected me.  Many years ago, I watched my Uncle cry over losing his farm to big-business farmers and no one seemed to care.  Rauch’s book has a chapter with suggestions for us to resist, fight back, and defend the Constitution of Knowledge. I highly recommend that you read his new book. Understanding contains the beginnings of solutions.