Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 3618994" data-attributes="member: 6562">I've worked on both, so thanks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Regardless of the state of the current art, the problem space for missiles is far more restricted than the problem space for economics.(There's also a lack of constancy. Funding for cool missile guidance systems -- or more accurately, automated target recognition systems -- is subject to political whim, and competition is wonky due to secrecy issues. Success is also hard to measure -- because success and failure become political issues.) I skipped a few steps, so I'll back-track a bit.1/ Let's assume that everyone agrees how to write "safe" programs. Let's assume these programs follow the above laws: all programs are satisfied with their roles, etc.2/ Let's assume that people are good about personal computer security -- we don't want any distributed zombie / worm entity to spontaneously gain sentience, and thus none does.3/ Let's assume that, for any well-defined information manipulation task, we can write a program to perform that task better.4/ So, under what conditions could we expect a group (with the resources) to break these "safe" rules? Who could profit from faster and smarter? Er... right. Self-modifying. You seem to agree? You... think code is AI if it's "written in an AI language"? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously, though, consider the implications of what you've just said. There's a bunch of fast but dumb decisions being made (according to simple rules). If something fast and smart were competing with the fast-but-dumb guys, who would win? Do you think money could be made by owning fast-and-smart?Once the fast-and-smart guy exists, everyone will need to be fast-and-smart. Then one guy will come along and be fast-and-smarter -- better able to analyze and adapt to the environment, which is merely fast-and-smart.Humans can currently deal with the trade environment's rate of change, even if we can't deal with the volume of trades. What happens when we start adding actual smarts to the trading algorithms? Everyone will have to do it, and (eventually) everyone will have to entrust the modification of these algorithms to other algorithms.Why do I think things might happen this way? Because there's a lot of money to be made for the first guy to do it. And it turns out people like money. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Cheers, -- N</blockquote>

Verification