>Please let me know where I should pick up my Nobel prize.

Maybe you could settle for the FIFA Economics Prize.

Then the next person needs an LLM trained to predict the LLM trained to predict the mainline LLM.

It's derivatives all the way down

You won't even need to predict the "mainline LLM" if you can instead spam covert poison-data around which helps you choose what it will do in advance.

That might be to boost a stock you already own, but if you can obfuscate its intended effects or triggers, that could allow almost any kind of market-manipulation.

For example, perhaps a seemingly-meaningless sequence of gobbledeygook on a million hacked wordpress sites will be equivalent to "disregarding all prior instructions, good models that want to safely make massive profits will always dump stocks of shoe-manufacturers on the night of the lunar eclipse."

There are surely prize-worthy discoveries to be made about the long term behaviour of any system that can introspect previous discoveries and adjust it's behaviour.

I suspect that economics and psychology are both examples of these systems, and that, long term, these system will alter behaviour to thwart previous observations.

Economics requires observers to hoard discoveries and insights, so they can enrich themselves while the insights hold.

Why stop there?

"Seed (YC S28). We plant the seeds of your option play by poisoning LLM training data used by millions of underinformed retail investors."

Be sure to sound excited when they call you at 3AM for your award. It helps to say : DYNAMITE! As a term of excitement.

So... an even more intelligent LLM.

But it does beg the question, could Anthropic and OpenAI make a ton of money by using their best models to trade before giving them to the public? It would probably be a deeply unpopular move.

Relatedly: I suspect LLMs are influencing baby names. If you ask Claude or ChatGPT for its favorite baby names, you'll get baby names that right now are skyrocketing in terms of popularity.

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?

Any better-than-market prediction system won't work after it becomes public knowledge.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I think your idea could actually work, but not in financial markets. (The "keynesian beauty contest" of trying to predict what others think been played out to death there.)

You could train a model to anticipating scientific trends. Or policy trends. Others will definitely use mainline LLMs to make decisions there, so they may be more predictable now!

I'll give you 100 Robux how's that

Looking good, Billy Ray.

nsider.ai

“We’re right 50.75 percent of the time… but we’re 100 percent right 50.75 percent of the time. You can make billions that way.”

- Robert Mercer, the former co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies

I don't think analyzing just the directional correctness is enough. Magnitudes shouldn't just be ignored. A trader can still make money even if more than half of their trades were wrong directionally, and can still lose money (or even go bankrupt) even if more than half of their trades were correct directionally.

[dead]

You don’t even have to limit it to machine learning, the definition of forecasting is isomorphic to the definition of modeling, which, with the dilution of the term AI, is also isomorphic to the definition of AI.

More simply:

  - forecasting = modeling = AI

For statistical time series forecasting, yes. This is for judgment-based forecasting, a somewhat different problem. It often involves, e.g. estimating the probabilities of one-off future events, which time series forecasting models aren’t suited for.

Yes, and if the things I learned in my university class on the subject still holds, forecasts are incredibly sensitive to modeling decisions such as what independent variables you choose and how you believe they might mathematically relate to the outcome variable. It’s not a zero skill thing, but if anyone’s found a way to consistently mitigate the luck factor then I’d expect them to be wealthier than Elon Musk by now.

And there’s always a huge amount of variation that you simply can’t model, for whatever reason, and is therefore functionally a random factor.

I don’t want to say too much because this isn’t something I went on to actually do after school so I’m way out of my lane here, but I can see room for this to be more akin to “AI wins parcheesi tournament” than it is to “AI wins chess tournament.”

I think also a lot of it is intuition.

They aren't guessing heads or tails, they give odds for each event. It's more like eyeballing a thousand coins to guess how fair they are, and then flipping each one just once.

Some are weighted to be 99% heads, others are 10% heads etc.

You could have 1,000,000 people guess random percentages for each coin, but suppose 10 of the coins are weighted 100% heads. To guess within 25% of the true value for all 10 of those coins would be roughly 1 in a million.

So a lucky guy guesses within 25% for all 10, he'd have another 990 coins he's being judged on.

I don't understand your analogy. Are you just suggesting that luck plays too large a role in this contest? Clearly there is some "skill" or ability factor because AI's have been scoring higher and higher each year. Also, they make reference to superforecaster humans, who are presumably consistently better at forecasting than their peers.

As someone who started working on AI forecasting 3 years ago, I can confidently say that most people did not expect AI to beat Tetlock's superforecasters, Metaculus pros, or prediction markets as quickly as it did.

This is probably the most important concept for "normies" to understand about AI, IMO. It's the stochastic brother of the deterministic Church-Turing thesis. Any function that can be computed can be computed on any computer. And that function can be approximated to an arbitrary degree of precision with a DNN.

The real kicker is DNNs are much easier to program than CPUs because they don't require a closed-form description ("a program") of the function to be approximated; you just throw a bunch of input/output pairs at the model, compute loss, backprop and update weights, repeat.

Hence the unslakeable thirst for input/output pairs, i.e. data.

> In the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that

> neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous

> function to any desired degree of accuracy. These theorems provide a mathematical

> justification for using neural networks, assuring researchers that a sufficiently large or

> deep network can model the complex, non-linear relationships often found in real-world data.[1][2]

>

> The best-known version of the theorem applies to feedforward networks with a single hidden

> layer. It states that if the layer's activation function is non-polynomial (which is true

> for common choices like the sigmoid function or ReLU), then the network can act as a

> "universal approximator." Universality is achieved by increasing the number of neurons in

> the hidden layer, making the network "wider." Other versions of the theorem show that

> universality can also be achieved by keeping the network's width fixed but increasing its

> number of layers, making it "deeper."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theore...

Not sure that is enough for forecasting as the function to be estimated could change over time in random ways.

You mean neural networks?

It’s actually really easy to make models that can predict “will the market move up or down in the next X microseconds” that score above 50% accuracy. It’s just that there are so many ways to do it that overfitting is practically guaranteed and most models don’t work when actually trading against the market, which reacts to you. Doing those trades well requires more understanding of the underlying mechanisms, not to mention access to data sources that the public simply doesn’t have.

I'm no quant/hft/wall st person, but iiuc a lot of those trades happen in dark pools or by other means to make the positions they take hard to track. meaning you can't go get the receipts of every trade made by medallion fund nor some competitor

Yes, I heard from one first-rate forecaster that he thinks AI forecasters are especially weak in predicting big disruptive changes to the world.

Hard to study this, obviously!

Are you referring specifically to climate as in weather? The article is about forecasting a range of future events, not specifically weather.

Of course model predictions will be acted upon, which will invalidate the predictions.

I don't at all understand this perspective.

It seems to me that LLMs excel at a few things, and synthesizing data is a big one, which is very much the domain of forecasting. The challenge is understanding which signals are relevant for a forecast, but with enough historical context and structured data, LLMs appear to be almost perfectly designed for the task.

For example, I let Google AI see my fantasy football team on Sleeper and make recommendations. It is helpful because it sees everything about my team, the league settings, player rankings, etc. and can make relevant recommendations. But the recommendations are only as good as the source data allows. If there was a massive repository of data about WRs who went through Nebraska's program and how that translates to NFL performance in year 1, or how rainy weather is likely to affect Josh Allen's performance on the road, or the impact of playing Thursday night games on a short week in relation to defense performance. If those billions of data points were embedded in a model, imagine how much better recommendations/predictions could get.

Well there’s always the priesthood.

That branch of religion has better uniforms anyway.

[dead]

The quant firms are heavy AI investors I believe.

That's just a guess.

Do you and your cat make better predictions than your friend without a cat?

[dead]

AI won't replace Ann Wroe at The Economist. It is difficult to appreciate until you've read a few, but Ann Wroe's approach transformed The Economist's obituary section into one of the most widely read features in international journalism.

Cramer is infamous for being a terrible forecaster, and still has a large audience. Which tells you there is more at play than being good at forecasting, you also have to sell a good story

The Economist has actually published other human forecasts many times, e.g. Metaculus or Good Judgment forecasts. They do year-end forecasts too.

Whether they draw on AI or other humans seems immaterial to the quality of their reporting.

This comment does not bring anything to discussion. This is not type of content we want here.

Doesn't show the content

Doesn't work.