[vecter]

This is false. You can't make money by being consistently wrong about the "true" value of an asset. Then, the only way you can stay in business is to sell the asset when it's too high, and buy it when it's too low. Notice how doing this actually decreases the amplitude of the oscillations. If you're selling at a high point, you're pushing the price back down. Likewise, if you're buying at a low point, you're pushing the price back up (both times, towards its "true" value).

The reason I use "true" in quotes is because no one really knows the value of an asset. The only real estimate we have is the market estimate. Let me put it another way: if you don't believe markets efficiently allocate capital, then how would you propose we do it? By fiat?

Once again, I want to emphasize that you cannot be wrong about the value of an asset and consistently make money. If these AI algorithms are consistently making money, then they are, more often than not, accurately predicting the value of that asset (where value is defined as the future market price). Of course, my argument hinges on the market price being "right", but like I said, markets are the best way we know how to value things.

[JabavuAdams]

What is the true value of an asset?

There are many theories on this, and "what someone else will pay for it" is just one. Investors are not rational!

[vecter]

I'm not even talking about investors. I'm talking about how to price an apple. Do you think there's a better way to price it than by the free market?

Note that I'm not advocating getting rid of regulation -- I think that's very important, since most businesses don't correctly price in externalities, a la BP and the 2008 crash. To answer your question, though, he point I'm making is that no one knows the true value of an asset. That's why we have markets: to help us price them. Unless we have a better mechanism for pricing assets (anything, not just stocks), we should take the market price as close to fair.