[saulrh]

Yes? This is an interview with an author that was conducted specifically to talk about the book and the material in it. What did you expect?

Unrelated, I'd like to see your argument against that particular line. IMO the comparison is an excellent one; its only issue is that the chosen scope ("the financial market") is too small. Corporations and other bureaucratic entities like governments are powerful cross-domain optimizers with utterly alien cognitive processes and goals. Intelligence, certainly, artificial, might as well call it that.

[zghst]

Well I'd hope that we'd expect better when an author makes outrageous, nonsensical claims.

They are rehashing the book instead of analyzing its claims and assessing its validity. Conveniently, the blame of all the issues are left on the firms instead of the rules of the marketplace, conditions, etc which lead to distortions and structural issues in the market.

[saulrh]

I believe that you're looking for a very different piece than this was intended to be. This is essentially a summary of the book. I don't know what the motive was, but it's probably something like "I believe that more people should hear these ideas". The treatment you're requesting would likely qualify as a doctoral thesis. The writers at Wired do not have the time, nor is it likely that they have the expertise, to create that work, nor does the audience or funding exist to make it responsible course of action for the author.

If you wish to engage on the claim itself, instead of spouting unsupported emotional appeals like "outrageous" and "nonsensical", perhaps you could present a rational argument? I suggest considering the belief I noted earlier about the scope of the argument: The label of "artificial intelligence" is valid for more than just financial organizations and market(s).

[zghst]

It is a poor attempt to reconcile the authors views within the industry that he exists within outside of the scope of the book. If they want to throw softballs fine. We are more than free to criticize his claims, free of a doctoral thesis, mind you.

[deong]

Of course you're free to criticize his claims. It's just pointless to demand someone else do it for you. The interviewer here apparently felt there was a different purpose than they one you'd want. I'm not sure what your recommended remedy for that would be -- forbid him from doing the piece?

If you think the claims are "nonsense", then by all means, go off and write up your rebuttal.

[ufmace]

I'd say this is what we call a Puff Piece. Something like 80% of all news is Puff Pieces or Hit Pieces on various things. There's not much practical difference between a Puff Piece and an ad, or a Hit Piece and an ad for the opposite side of whatever is getting hit.

[edanm]

Calling financial markets AI is wrong in pretty much the only way a word can be "wrong": It's not what most people mean when they talk about AI.

This makes it really easy to make statements that sound deep and meaningful, but really aren't. E.g. "I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence - we already have artificial intelligence, its called a company. Companies are artificial, and they behave intelligently".

This just isn't what people are worried about. What people are worried about is:

1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI".

2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Again, this is only very thinly related to the "companies as AI" spiel (companies are not superintelligent, they don't actually have coherent goals of their own).

[notthemessiah]

It's not that companies are "operating intelligently" it's that they aren't: they're operating on a principle that maximizes profits (and ROI for shareholders) at the expense of everything else, that's the central guiding principle, and nobody at a publicly traded firm can oppose it successfully, without being voted off the board by shareholders. It's effectively an algorithm that delegates tasks to human operators, and automation is slowly replacing the human component.

[Retra]

If I said "algebra is geometry", you could make the same criticism; it's wrong, because that's not what most people mean by those terms.

But then you see that almost all of the most important mathematical developments in human history make that exact conflation, and that it is all driven by the need to describe human experience in symbolic language... and it does look very deep.

Nobody cares what 'most people' mean. Most people are idiots. Sure, you wouldn't talk like that when you're writing a dictionary, but dictionary writers are not known for making intellectual breakthroughs. That's the difference between description thinking and proscriptive. One allows for creativity.