Again, I’m not talking about ChatGPT. That is an entirely different type of AI from which I am talking about, something you should understand since you “work in computers.”
There wouldn’t be scientific studies of using AI, again- NOT ChatGPT- to predict the stock market if there were no way to do it. Or at least, those studies would say so. They don’t.
Again, I’m not talking about ChatGPT. That is an entirely different type of AI from which I am talking about, something you should understand since you “work in computers.”
You know that ChatGPT is a neural net tied to a large language model, right? Or the ANN fr that article you posted.
The other thing I’ve seen was hooking language models to predict positive vs negative news from news feeds, Twitter, and other sources of online discussion. Which is 100% in the realm of language models.
This is why it’s important to be specific about the algorithm you are talking about and not to just spitball. There’s lots of theoretical applications but no one has made much progress on making money as much as the HFT arbitrage bots.
In any case, you’re spitballing. Its all theoretical talk without any actual algorithm of note. You’re not talking about how Wall Street is organized or what HFTs are doing, which was the point of the post at the root of this discussion.
Its about Support Vector Machines (a statistical method) and ANNs (of which ChatGPT is one type of).
Did you read the link? Or did you just pick up the first hit from Google when you noticed this discussion wasn’t going the way you hoped? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do to counter my discussion point from earlier.
More proof that the stock market is based on people believing in magic.
And you’re here arguing with me that magic tech that doesn’t exist might exist in the future. I’m trying to tie this discussion back down to reality by roughly describing how HFT work and you suddenly go all hypothetical on me. If you want blind faith in future tech, then sure whatever. Go believe away. But there’s some pretty basic contradictions in your argument style that’s quite amusing to me.
Again, I’m not talking about ChatGPT. That is an entirely different type of AI from which I am talking about, something you should understand since you “work in computers.”
There wouldn’t be scientific studies of using AI, again- NOT ChatGPT- to predict the stock market if there were no way to do it. Or at least, those studies would say so. They don’t.
For example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291124000615
You know that ChatGPT is a neural net tied to a large language model, right? Or the ANN fr that article you posted.
The other thing I’ve seen was hooking language models to predict positive vs negative news from news feeds, Twitter, and other sources of online discussion. Which is 100% in the realm of language models.
This is why it’s important to be specific about the algorithm you are talking about and not to just spitball. There’s lots of theoretical applications but no one has made much progress on making money as much as the HFT arbitrage bots.
I am not talking about LLMs either.
Maybe look at the link.
ANNs form the basis of LLMs dude.
In any case, you’re spitballing. Its all theoretical talk without any actual algorithm of note. You’re not talking about how Wall Street is organized or what HFTs are doing, which was the point of the post at the root of this discussion.
Any time you want to read the link, let me know.
Its about Support Vector Machines (a statistical method) and ANNs (of which ChatGPT is one type of).
Did you read the link? Or did you just pick up the first hit from Google when you noticed this discussion wasn’t going the way you hoped? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do to counter my discussion point from earlier.
Please explain why that proves that it is impossible to use any machine learning method to make stock predictions better than a human.
You literally started this thread with:
And you’re here arguing with me that magic tech that doesn’t exist might exist in the future. I’m trying to tie this discussion back down to reality by roughly describing how HFT work and you suddenly go all hypothetical on me. If you want blind faith in future tech, then sure whatever. Go believe away. But there’s some pretty basic contradictions in your argument style that’s quite amusing to me.