Yes, but I always found that objection a bit silly. It's like pointing out that real cows are obviously not perfect spheres nor do they live in a vacuum.
> [...] if prices perfectly reflected available information, there is no profit to gathering information, in which case there would be little reason to trade and markets would eventually collapse.[2]
That's a stupid way to formulate this. Markets wouldn't "collapse". They would get slightly less efficient until equilibrium is restored to where arbitragers can make enough money to keep prices at that level of efficiency.
Maybe not "collapse" in a the sense of going to zero but if there was no profit to trading, then the quant trading industry would not exist, trading profits would collapse.
Meanwhile Two Sigma is hiring alpha quants to be AI research scientists at $250k starting salary + bonuses.
Even if we're just talking about the HFT/sell-side, there clearly exist various anomalous inefficiencies that can be exploited.
As I said, if we woke up this morning and prices were magically efficient in an idealised sense, at most a few quants would go home and retire early, and tomorrow we'd be back at the level (in-) efficiency that allows people to be market makers.
How can prices reflect all available information if there's no profit to collecting the information and there are no informed quant traders? Who is collecting the information exactly so that prices can reflect it and what is their incentive for doing so? Efficiency doesn't happen magically or automatically - traders create it. It's like a kaggle contest* to process information, with the incentive being profit.
You don't believe in the existence of residual return orthogonal to priced cross sectional risk factors (alpha)? E.g. Trends, momentum, volatility clustering, etc. many easily demonstrable inefficiencies. VPIN and order flow toxicity are highly predictive features. Most HFT MM especially in crypto involves hybrid alpha in addition to the (visible) bid-ask spread, which it itself an "inefficiency" to compensate market makers like Jane Street and other successful firms that operate on the assumption that weak form EMH is not accurate.
I would have hoped that by now it was obvious that we are talking about a _specific_ weak form of the EMH that takes friction into account?
What is your whole first paragraph about? Who are you trying to convince? Where's the strawman that claimed that the strongest version of EMH that you can imagine is literally true?
There's no single weak form of EMH that could be accurate or inaccurate: there are many versions of the EMH in various strengths and dimensions (that can be accurate or inaccurate).
To be more specific: Jane Street believes (or acts lie they believe) that markets are at least efficient enough that it takes a lot of effort for them to make money. As a very, very weak form: someone doing chart astrology, eh, I mean technical analysis, on S&P 500 stocks won't beat the market. But even much stronger versions than this are defensible.
The real strong forms that say that all information is preciously reflected in profits is a simplifying assumption you can sometimes make to make your life easier. Just like you sometimes neglect friction in physics. But when you want to decide how long your train needs to emergency brake, you kinda need to take friction into account. Similarly, when trying to make money in the market or trying to understand how others like Jane Street make money, the strongest EMH is not a good guide.
Question is about EMH and how you expect efficiency to be achieved absent profit for collecting the information.
There are 3 accepted forms of EMH. I'm talking about weak form - just price history and nothing else. E.g. formulaic alpha have demonstrable predictive value in modeling.
All that to say you believe trading profits are real. Maybe you just need to learn more about what a buy side alpha quant at two sigma does for a living. Trading models can be robust and exploit real inefficiencies. Weak form EMH is demonstrably false on it's face, as you agree.
You're deliberately misunderstanding that you linked an article to EMH as informative and true, and then don't want to defend it. How do markets become efficient and reflect (any) information if nobody can profit by collecting information and trading on it? EMH states it's impossible to beat the market and that all available information is priced in. How, magically?
The way you're speaking about trading in terms of technical analysis implies you have retail trading exposure and have no idea what institutional alpha quants do.
I'm not sure most people are that naïve that they can't differentiate between "any computer that acts smartly" (how the term "AI" is used) and the word chatbot. Of course, LLM is even more precise
Tangential question: what do you call transformers-based models that generate images or videos? Are they LLMs? They're not really "language" models. But there's not really an easy term for them. Maybe "image models" and "video models"?
I'd call them video/image generators because I don't know the word for the underlying technology. I can't imagine they're LLMs because, indeed, the second L is for language
Today I learned, Stockfish moved to neural network on 2023. I knew that it was just a minmax with alpha beta pruning and a really good eval function. Now its not.
> I knew that it was just a minmax with alpha beta pruning and a really good eval function. Now its not.
It is still "just" a minimax with alpha beta pruning, except the eval function is now a neural network. NNUE, to be more specific.
I highly advise anyone who is curious about chess engines, but hasn't heard about NNUE to read about it. I find this technology absolutely fascinating.
The key idea is that a neural network is structured in a way that makes it very cheap to calculate scores for similar positions. This means that during a tree search, each time you advance or backtrack you can update the score efficiently instead of recalculating it from scratch.
I mean, it still is. Now it just has a really good neural net-based eval function. Don't be fooled: it's not that stockfish just has "a really good eval function", and that's the only thing that makes it as strong as it is. The actual tree search is _incredibly_ sophisticated, with boatloads of heuristics, optimizations, and pruning methods on top of alpha-beta.
The Library of Congress has tons of books from foreign publishers. I have gone there many times for their extensive collection of German and Russian scientific and technical monographs. They also have a ton of obscure foreign publications and periodicals.
Unfortunately, their catalog does not list this particular magazine as far as I can tell.
hmm there are apps produced by your script that claim to be fixed according to https://avarayr.github.io/shamelectron/ (Signal, Discord, Notion, etc). And I checked that those apps are updated. Which one’s correct?
Nope. The biggest impact on gmail was making sure I had DMARC, DKIM and SPF all set up correctly.
(I tried several other relay services like mailgun and those /did/ have noticeable impact - SES was the first one I tried that didn't, so I stuck with it).
Regular backups help in this case, you can move all of your data to a new host if you have a recent backup somewhere and your rotation key. Not really approachable for the average user today but there are people working to make this easier.
I read your reply as the scenario from GP is unlikely to happen in practice or has low impact. To me it seems you need to make frequent backups of "your" data to have a copy of it.
Can i run multiple PDSes with my own single identity to not give one provider exclusive power over access to "my" data?
Ideally, a client app would make these backups for you automatically. I hope Bluesky official client will add automatic backups (in addition to the existing manual export flow that already exists). It's not hard to set it up as a GitHub action today if you're technical but making it accessible to non-technical users seems important.
>Can i run multiple PDSes with my own single identity to not give one provider exclusive power over access to "my" data?
Not really since there has to be a source of truth where the writes happen. I guess you could manually replicate changes between multiple servers but there still has to be one that applications know to talk to. I'm not sure what problem it would solve. This seems similar to "can I have multiple deployments of my site" — you sure can, but you might as well deploy it elsewhere when you actually plan to point to it.
I personally believe that the chance of Bluesky PBC suddenly swapping all of their software to no longer be built on atproto to be a very low chance, yes.
There’s middle grounds here; for example, due to some recent moderation decisions, some users have decided to move away from Bluesky PBC-run PDSes and to self hosting. Those users did not need to proactively backup to move. The proactive backup cases are things like “Bluesky PBC’s servers disappear suddenly” or “they ban your account.”
I don’t think you can run multiple PDSes, but since it’s quick to move the canonical version, I don’t see that as a huge drawback personally. In the same way you’d fallback to the secondary if the primary turns out badly, you’d set up a new PDS and point your identity at it.
reply