Given the OpenAI initiative and the explicit intention of "democratizing" AI, it seems they're interested in funding application, not more research.
I think the results seen from deep learning along with recent developments in commodity hardware(GPUs have made major leaps in the past two years) to run them in a reasonable amount of time has kicked off a frenzy. IMO it does seem a little overhyped in the same way the internet was -- its a tool that enables ideas beyond our imagination, so VCs throw money at companies on a dart board hoping one takes off. In the end, the internet was a revolution but it wasn't as quick as everyone thought.
TL;DR - AI is becoming a tool that can be used by anyone.
>> AI is becoming a tool that can be used by anyone.
The fact that I can do it should be evidence enough for that statement. ;)
As far as the bulk of your comment goes, maybe. That's a prediction, but I can't say that I feel especially confident in the prospects of it. But who knows. Cold fusion looked like a lock for a revolution 60 years ago, and social media looked like a fad a decade ago.
I had forgotten about that part. Thanks for the clip; it's awesome!
Call me old-fashioned, but I still think words matter. IANAL so I don't know whether any laws are broken or not by such claims as "worlds greatest coffee", but there are truth in advertising laws on the books in the U.S. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv... Even if there weren't, it erodes your integrity if you're not being truthful and the faces of the staff in the video clip are a nice balance between disbelief over Buddy's credulity and shame (particularly on the guy in the foreground). But I may be reading too much into this...
(Repeating here that I'm not claiming that Nylas' claim is false; I don't know if it is or isn't).
Facebook's IPO flopped because of a glitch in the nasdaq where orders weren't being filled for hours and then multiple orders were being filled. It was not because investors didn't like the stock
I don't think the NASDAQ glitch had anything to do with it. FB flopped for many months after the IPO, not just on the first day. A much more likely reason for the decline that lasted months and brought the price down to $18/share is that investors didn't like the stock.
NASDAQ glitches don't curse a stock for months at a time.
Right. The stock flopped because it came out at a time when Facebook was still trying to transition to mobile. Their revenue from PC's was fine but they seemed to be missing the boat on mobile revenue and analysts were unconvinced they could monetize mobile.
Then they had a quarterly report that blew the lid off of mobile revenue and since then the stock has been a rocket. They executed mobile well and that's what the market was looking for.
They've only gotten stronger as Twitter has floundered after coming out strong. I do not have a position in Twitter but if they figure out how to add users (what Wall St. wants to see) they too will explode higher. They have said they do not expect any significant user growth this year and not until some time next year as new strategies get put in place.
If my wife starts using Twitter then I'll load up on the stock.
The glitch was also an anomoly to the nasdaq system as the typical ipo behavior was usually to buy up shares.
Rather in FB's case, there was a flood of order cancellations (in response to the news) entering the system that would reset the ipo book, preventing the ipo from going off.
This was a common strategy among pit traders in the 80's to place orders to entice other traders to follow, while a partner would take a large position in the opposite direction. Paul Tudor Jones was infamous for it and even laughed about it on the documentary, "Trader".
It is ethically questionable, but shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't be managing money if your strategy is to follow bigger fish.
Futures were off bad before the market opened. People look at futures, think the sky is falling, flood the market with sell orders that cannot be filled until market opens, price temporarily crashes, then quants and smart money bring them back.
This is most likely a correction, not a recession. There will be recession in markets that depend on China -- the commodity exporters like Brazil, Russia, Venezuela, etc.
The US economy is actually doing quite well. Stocks are not overvalued, commodities are cheap, jobless rate is going down, and housing is at 2004 levels. Fundamentals suggest the bull market could last at least a few more years, yet cash levels are at their highest since 2009. This correct is a great buying opportunity for anyone who has stood out of the market for the past few years.
> I guess the only difference is that in the West, the money goes mostly to the banks, which distribute it to the companies or invest it in the stock market and real estate. Consequently, the rich get richer and the poor don't see any of this money.
Poor people see it when they can still get loans because the government provides liquidity in the MBS market(specifically, subprime mortgages). Middle/Upper class see it when the government supports bond prices.
The situation in Venezuela is different because they used the state-owned oil producers to balance their deficit. My guess it that now that oil prices have tanked, they are dipping into their cash reserves to pay for the debt accumulated expanding their oil production
I was pretty far into building a platform for investors to buy portfolio insurance, then I read about Vest this morning(http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/hardware-demo-day/). It sucks to see I'm not the first, but their website reveals the idea still has a long way to go before normal investors adopt it. Most investors don't feel qualified to pick stocks for their own portfolio, so how will they know what type of insurance they need? What happens when this idea scales and option prices become far more expensive as a result? Option liquidity(or lack thereof) is the reason portfolio insurance in the 80's turned to futures for protection. It's a good idea, but I suspect it will take a few iterations :)
I think the results seen from deep learning along with recent developments in commodity hardware(GPUs have made major leaps in the past two years) to run them in a reasonable amount of time has kicked off a frenzy. IMO it does seem a little overhyped in the same way the internet was -- its a tool that enables ideas beyond our imagination, so VCs throw money at companies on a dart board hoping one takes off. In the end, the internet was a revolution but it wasn't as quick as everyone thought.
TL;DR - AI is becoming a tool that can be used by anyone.