[calgarymicro]

> The algorithm is to be tuned over historical data

Because as we all know, when it comes to financial markets, past performance guarantees future results. Oh wait . . .

[OutOfHere]

That's just something they say to scare the children.

In any event, the point of a decent algorithm is that if the result isn't complying with the action, upcoming updates to the weights will fix it. Moreover, changes to the weight would be such that they optimize for maximum learning.

It is so weird seeing people preach for an obscure entity to do something so basic, and being shut down when asking for transparency. Today's AIs could write good model-development algorithms for tasks that are a hundred times more complicated.

[calgarymicro]

> upcoming updates to the weights will fix it

Oops, the unaccountable algorithm eased when it should have tightened and Volcker Shocked when it should have eased. No prob, the weights will get tweaked and all will be well. Once the economic crisis blows over, anyway . . .

[pixelatedindex]

> That's just something they say to scare the children.

Is that really your response to “past results aren’t indicative of future performance”? Honestly at that point why not just let ChatGPT run loose and set guidance? Please, I implore you to think about the issue a bit deeper.