= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yes, but this means that a lot of very rich people are very incorrect as to what is important for their wealth. Which is possible. But you have to posit a lot people being in error about things they should know about, for the heavy-hereditibility picture to fit.
Yes, but this means that a lot of very rich people are very incorrect as to what is important for their wealth.
They know about the factors they can control. After all, those are the ones they actually focus on.
I'm talking about contemporary-level-of-technology trading systems, not about future malicious AIs.
So? An opaque neural net would quickly learn how to get around trade size restrictions if given the proper motivations.
Why is this bizarre? It simply means that high IQ individuals don't capture all the value they create.
Consider that if it had been the opposite - IQ was more a personal benefit than a country benefit - we'd be explaining it as "obviously smart people benefit themselves at the expense of others". Being able to explain something or its opposite isn't explaining, unless we dig deeper.
Consider that if it had been the opposite - IQ was more a personal benefit than a country benefit - we'd be explaining it as "obviously smart people benefit themselves at the expense of others".
Yes, it's called basing your beliefs on the evidence.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
At which point the humans running this NN will notice that it likes to go around risk control measures and will... persuade it that it's a bad idea.
It's not like no one is looking at the trades it's doing.
How? By instituting more complex control measures? Then you're back to the problem Kaj mentioned above.