Posts
Comments
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/12/permitted-possi.html
I was asking the question as I am interested in how "determining" the trajectory of AI is approached relative to program trading, given the author's comment, to wit:
"Trading cognitive content around between diverse AIs is more difficult and less likely than it might sound. Consider the field of AI as it works today. Is there any standard database of cognitive content that you buy off the shelf and plug into your amazing new system, whether it be a chessplayer or a new data-mining algorithm? If it's a chess-playing program, there are databases of stored games - but that's not the same as having databases of preprocessed cognitive content."
While at graduate studies in literature at Georgetown University during 86-7, a girlfriend provided AI consulting for the DOD. One of the aspect that she got me thinking about was you exact issue with my post -- connections (or relativity, as in a legal sense for the purpose of evidential inquiry.
A juris doctorate, I tend to question procedural a law substantive issues and constructs.
Thus, to answer your question, my theory (“quantitative relativity”) focuses such inquiries here (as AI trajectory) with a rules-based approach.
I posted my introduction of QR last October… http://seekingalpha.com/article/48689-a-paradigm-shift-for-hedge-funds , whereby I suggested that a paradigm shift may be considered within the program trading industry. There I…
“posit that, yes, as quantitative programs model prospective strategies, market exchanges represent behavioral transference and, consequently, are objectified by indicators and functions localizing the status of neural (i.e., psychological) profiles and networks. In summary, quantified particulars of any market exchange – as a human endeavor – are, by definition, correlative to the generalities of relative mass and velocity of position, trending, and environment; whereby, practical application then becomes strategic modeling of symbiotic placement and concordance.”
Anyway, for me, now, coding a state machine is what a program engineer recommended (last December) as necessary for complete of my system. He was right.
The author’s post here reminded me of similar conversations. For instance, “two separate minds” may equate to batching stocks. I debated this aspect early in the past 8 years of r&d on SMART. The trader (who presented me with the original idea of creating program trading applications based on E=mc^2) focused on batching. We split over that and one other issue.
Hope this helps – not hypes…
dr
I am coding a state machine for a seven year R&D program trading system. Rules-based, SMART (securities market automated relativity trading) is based on the Theory of Relativity.
Do you have any experience with state machine design, synchronous, whereby state memory intra-relates input and states to govern output as well as state transitions?
dr