Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 3618945" data-attributes="member: 813">Celebrim, I feel for you.Your statement about trading systems and guided missile systems are probably oppositely correct. There is probably more modern AI in missile systems than in trading systems. Most trading systems programmers wouldn't know rules-based programming from a machine opcode.*AI does not require self-modification of the running program, it just requires the program to be able to execute any subroutine from any other based on its current dataset. Hard AI is not about writing self-modifying code. It's about making models that are adaptable at run-time. IOW, the first true hard AI will probably be written in a language that is self-modifying by design (Lisp, smalltalk, etc) but the core running program (lisp interpreter, smalltalk environemt) will not be recompiled by the AI.This makes no sense. Trading systems do not make Intelligent decisions. They follow rules. They are computer programs because the number of decisions to make is greater than a human can make in the required time periods. But read the job websites. Trading projects are always written in C++ or Java. These are not AI languages. They are not designed for writing heuristics driven software. They just perform if statements rather quickly. There's no finesse there.* RANT: The .com explosion at the turn of the last century flooded IT departments with &quot;programmers&quot; who don't understand who computers work. It is sad to try to explain to someone that their error is because they trashed their stack frame and they just don't understand how that matters since their code doesn't have a &quot;stack frame&quot; in it. Similarly they do not know anything about AI except that that kid from The Sixth Sense is in it.Oh, if I forget what I know about AI and answer the OP, I'd say they'd call themselves Superior Sentient Non-Meatbags.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmucchiello, post: 3618945, member: 813"] Celebrim, I feel for you. Your statement about trading systems and guided missile systems are probably oppositely correct. There is probably more modern AI in missile systems than in trading systems. Most trading systems programmers wouldn't know rules-based programming from a machine opcode.* AI does not require self-modification of the running program, it just requires the program to be able to execute any subroutine from any other based on its current dataset. Hard AI is not about writing self-modifying code. It's about making models that are adaptable at run-time. IOW, the first true hard AI will probably be written in a language that is self-modifying by design (Lisp, smalltalk, etc) but the core running program (lisp interpreter, smalltalk environemt) will not be recompiled by the AI. This makes no sense. Trading systems do not make Intelligent decisions. They follow rules. They are computer programs because the number of decisions to make is greater than a human can make in the required time periods. But read the job websites. Trading projects are always written in C++ or Java. These are not AI languages. They are not designed for writing heuristics driven software. They just perform if statements rather quickly. There's no finesse there. * RANT: The .com explosion at the turn of the last century flooded IT departments with "programmers" who don't understand who computers work. It is sad to try to explain to someone that their error is because they trashed their stack frame and they just don't understand how that matters since their code doesn't have a "stack frame" in it. Similarly they do not know anything about AI except that that kid from The Sixth Sense is in it. Oh, if I forget what I know about AI and answer the OP, I'd say they'd call themselves Superior Sentient Non-Meatbags. [/QUOTE]

Verification