Golf balls in a school bus...

Rashomon · Post by **Rashomon** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:21 am

[quote]
classical TA, reading The Economist and thinking you're a global macro genius
[/quote]

Easy filter for that: No assholes. Anyone who thinks they have an edge via either of the above has an unrealistic concept of himself vs others.

[quote]
TSWP
[/quote]

Here’s the actual paper.

[quote]
mtsm
[/quote]

Cool vs hot seems post hoc to me. The unsuccessful will always be agitated. Success ⇒ respect ⇒ cool head. It's even been measured in babboons.

[quote]
MCgeneratedname
[/quote]

Exactly what's wrong with looking to the biggest winners to find out how to be successful. (Actually that adds in even more error types, like harder to listen & be self-critical when everyone looks up to you, + every factor including cheating & luck needed to be high, to get to the very top.)

dgn2 · Post by **dgn2** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:01 am

I can see why being 'immersed' can be important in learning a skill and applying it in a competitive environment like trading, but I would argue that there are key psychological factors that are not related to analytical skill, but more related to emotional intelligence and comfort with risk. I am thinking here about the difference between someone who knows what trades to make and one who makes them.

dgn2 · Post by **dgn2** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:02 am

[double-post]

MCgeneratedname · Post by **MCgeneratedname** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:14 am

> Exactly what's wrong with looking to the biggest winners to find out how to be successful.

I thought I explained it well Confused

It's not scientific to look only at a sub-sample and deduce from it to the entire population.

When you make inference on sub-sample and not the entire population someone (i.e. me) can always come up with a story why this inference might be wrong and you have no real way to refute the story.

Here is one story: The biggest winners have an incentive to hide what makes them successful.

Let's say the real reason they are good is that they have insider information or are front running somehow or are quote stuffing,... or they read NuclearPhynance at night...

They don't want to this to become public.

So they create the myth that they are "enthusiastic" or they have "immersed" themselves.

But of course deducing that enthusiasm is the reason for their success and hiring new enthusiastic traders would be wrong.

(I actually believe enthusiasm / immersion is a key characteristic ... )

goldorak · Post by **goldorak** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:00 am

No one has been talking here about the topic 'success'. I mean, how do you define 'success'? It is absolutely impossible. I remember the 'bad old days' working for international companies with their stupid KPI/assessments. Waste of time invented by HR people to justify their existence.

Let's face it. All of this featuresuccess discourse is just an amusing discussion. Humans exist to be replaced by robots. I have spent my whole life removing human input/output as much as I can and replace it with computer's reliability. Most of the time if you cannot do it, the reason is to be found on the other side of the interface: other humans, input created by a human being, social pressure on entrepreneurs to create 'jobs'. Humans justify their existence at work just because there has to be some human interaction with another human at one moment, not always because it is needed, but often because some company was stupid enough to keep humans in the job. But with bots taking over, humans will end up exponentially obliterated by the system. And all these questions will not exist anymore.

A selected few running the system and owning its production parts will rule. Their only human counterparts will be quality craftsmen producing expensive and high quality goods which bots cannot produce yet. The others will live under subsidy. The ones posting on Facebook and getting rewarded pennies and cents for creating content (will probably be overrun by bots one day) and the ones subsided by a 'State' for keeping alive genetic diversity.

I could be pretty fine with receiving benefits for maintaining humanity's genetic diversity and using skis and kite boards made by genius craftsmen. Blush

TSWP · Post by **TSWP** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:37 am

>Humans exist to be replaced by robots.

I have to agree, it's been happening since the industrial revolution started, first agriculture, then other fields followed, it's happening in the investment world as well.

I also agree with the fact that a robot often does the job better than a human, as long as it is well programmed, and thus in theory this makes the discussion about who to hire meaningless at one point in the future - but not yet: as a minimum you still need to hire programmers to program the bots (unless you can program them all yourself).

Rashomon, thanks for the link to the paper.

darkmatters · Post by **darkmatters** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:06 pm

Goldorak,

You didn't happen to read this comic 3 or 4 days ago, did you? It sounds like you ripped it off.

Robot Job-pocalypse

As the comic hints, humans will always be needed to kiss the ass of their superiors.

svisstack · Post by **svisstack** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:57 pm

>> As the comic hints, humans will always be needed to kiss the ass of their superiors.

Some unique humans have different opinion about that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJjx12wkVQ&t=01h00m30s

I'm a cat, but still will be trying to build opinion about that, humans evaluated from monkeys and they don't kiss monkeys asses,

I can assume that creating AI will be form of evolution and if that assumption will holds, that will certainly prove that AI will be live on their own in our biological environment, making decisions without superiors in the loop.

So that will mean software and math people will won in long term? That term is of course irrelevant for hiring process, but can be for other type of decisions.

svisstack · Post by **svisstack** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:59 pm

Follow-up to previous post:

Out of pure curiosity I mailed Andrew Ng about this topic and he mostly directed me to article which I didn't read before.

http://fusion.net/story/54583/the-case-against-killer-robots-from-a-guy-actually-building-ai/

tl;dr: he is a practitioner so it looks on things from other perspective, what we has right now is very simple and humans learn differently we don't know exactly how (bonus from me: maybe resolution in quantum theory space will solve some mysteries here),

now is not a time to solve problems like this (Musk) bcs this will be ineffective, he didn't deny what musks say, but in his opinion is very distant future