The world is too complex for AI to pick your stocks, a hedge fund quant says
Gappy Paleologo warned AI still can't match the gut instincts and context humans bring to investing.
Some say Wall Street's big bet on AI might be getting ahead of what the tech can actually do.
The dream of letting ChatGPT build your investment portfolio may still be far off, according to one of the hedge fund world's top quant minds.
Gappy Paleologo, a partner at Balyasny Asset Management and a veteran of firms like Citadel and Hudson River Trading, said large language models like OpenAI's ChatGPT lack the real-world grounding needed to make serious investment decisions.
"The decision to invest in a particular stock is a very demanding cognitive function, and I don't see that really being replicated very well," Paleologo said on Bloomberg's "Money Stuff" podcast.
Despite the hype surrounding AI in finance, Paleologo argued that machine learning models are still disconnected from how investors experience companies through direct observation, human conversation, and a holistic understanding of industries and people.
"Our inputs are much more complex than just a string of text or YouTube videos," he said. "An investor has a fundamentally different experience of a company than an LLM that has an experience that is mediated by multiple layers of processing."
While AI may be able to handle baseline tasks like replicating a researcher's writing style or summarizing earnings calls, Paleologo remains skeptical of its ability to generate conviction around trades.
The human edge, in his view, is still rooted in messy, real-world intuition.
That is not to say AI won't change the game. He said he expects large firms like Bloomberg to roll out advanced prompt-based tools that replace traditional terminals, allowing investors to interact with data more naturally.
"This is going to happen in one form or another," he said. " But I don't think AI is that smart also. So I think that having a baseline system would be already pretty good."
Paleologo's caution comes as Wall Street is increasingly betting on AI to fuel the next wave of stock market growth.
Tech stocks, especially in the AI space, have soared since ChatGPT's launch in 2022, with the Magnificent Seven — Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, and Nvidia — now making up roughly one-third of the S&P 500's total market value.
But that optimism is meeting resistance. Market strategists like Callie Cox have warned that the AI trade could hit a wall amid rising tariffs, inflationary pressure, and slowing consumer demand.
Others have drawn historical parallels to the dot-com bubble. Richard Bernstein, chief investment officer of the $15 billion investment firm Richard Bernstein Advisors, said the AI mania is "eerily similar" to the overhype of internet stocks in the late 1990s.
As Paleologo sees it, AI may eventually integrate into investors' toolkits, but for now, it still lacks the sensory, intuitive, and contextual capabilities that define truly strategic investing.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
5 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
The Hidden Cost of OpenAI's Genius
OpenAI is the undisputed poster child of the AI revolution, the company that forced the world to pay attention with the launch of ChatGPT. But behind the scenes, a desperate and wildly expensive battle is raging, and the cost of keeping the company's geniuses in-house is becoming astronomical. According to a recent report from The Information, OpenAI revealed to investors that its stock-based compensation for employees surged more than fivefold last year to an astonishing $4.4 billion. That figure isn't just large; it's more than the company's entire revenue for the year, accounting for a staggering 119% of its $3.7 billion in total revenue. This is an unheard-of figure, even for Silicon Valley. For comparison, Google's stock compensation was just 16% of its revenue the year before its IPO. For Facebook, it was 6%. So what's going on? In short, OpenAI is fighting for its life in an unprecedented talent war, and its chief rival, Meta, is on the offensive. Mark Zuckerberg has been personally courting top AI researchers with massive compensation packages, successfully poaching several key minds from OpenAI's core teams. This has reportedly prompted a crisis at OpenAI, forcing it to 'recalibrate compensation' and promise even more rewarding pay packages to prevent a catastrophic brain drain. While stock-based compensation doesn't immediately burn through a company's cash reserves, it creates a major risk by diluting the value of shares held by investors. Every billion dollars in stock handed to employees means the slices of the pie owned by major backers like Microsoft and other venture capital firms get smaller. OpenAI is trying to sell this strategy as a long-term vision. The company projects that this massive expense will fall to 45% of revenue this year, and below 10% by 2030. Furthermore, OpenAI has reportedly discussed a future plan where its employees would collectively own roughly one-third of the restructured company, with Microsoft also owning another third. The goal is to turn employees into deeply invested partners who have a massive incentive to stay and build. But the 'Meta effect' is throwing a wrench in those neat projections. The aggressive poaching and the ensuing pay bumps mean OpenAI's costs are likely to remain sky-high. This high-stakes financial strategy puts OpenAI in a precarious position. The company is already spending billions of dollars a year as it spends heavily on the computing power needed to run its models. Adding billions more in stock compensation puts immense pressure on the company to dramatically increase revenue and find a path to profitability before its investors get spooked. While Microsoft seems locked in for the long haul, other investors may grow weary of having their ownership diluted so heavily. It forces a countdown timer on the company to deliver a massive financial return to justify the cost. OpenAI was founded with a mission to build artificial general intelligence (AGI) that 'benefits all of humanity.' This costly talent war, fueled by capitalist competition, puts immense pressure on that founding ideal. It becomes harder to prioritize safety and ethics when you're burning billions to keep your top minds from joining the competition. Ultimately, OpenAI is betting these billions to ensure it has the best talent to win the race to create the world's first true superintelligence. If they succeed, the financial cost will seem trivial. If they fail, or if a competitor gets there first, they will have spent themselves into a hole for nothing. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Unusual Options Standout Boston Scientific (BSX) is Signaling a Statistical Edge
Undeniably, Barchart's screener for unusual stock options volume is an important tool for deciphering market sentiment, especially among the voices that matter. Indeed, the smart money is akin to battleground states. Sure, California and New York represent the nation's economic engine. But it's states like Pennsylvania and Georgia that ultimately determine the presidency. Still, it's not a perfect analogy because unusual options screeners can be deceiving. For example, put/call ratios provide a potential clue as to the smart money's motivations. At the same time, derivatives can be bought or sold, thus changing whether the position is debit based or credit based. Moreover, an elevated volume of calls doesn't necessarily imply bullishness nor does heightened put activity necessarily imply bearishness. Chevron Stock's 4.6% Dividend Yield and 1.67% One Month Short Put Yield Make CVX a Buy Trading DAL Earnings? This Naked Put Play Benefits from Volatility Constellation Brands Stock is Down But Produced Good Earnings - Is STZ a Buy Here? Our exclusive Barchart Brief newsletter is your FREE midday guide to what's moving stocks, sectors, and investor sentiment - delivered right when you need the info most. Subscribe today! Further, not every security generating unusual options activity is going to be statistically intriguing. Frankly, many if not most names that look attractive are simply generating noise. A select few are genuinely tempting — and it's my belief that we can deploy Markovian frameworks and probabilistic analyses to separate the wheat from the chaff. We'll dive into this concept soon enough. For now, investors may want to zero in on Boston Scientific (BSX). A specialist in medical devices, BSX stock has been a solid performer. Since the start of this year, the equity gained nearly 17%. For context, the benchmark S&P 500 index is up only less than 7% during the same frame. Even better, those who missed the boat may have an opportunity for a do-over. On Thursday, total options volume for BSX stock reached 15,589 contracts, representing a 33.39% lift over the trailing one-month average. Call volume hit 11,368 contracts while put volume sat at only 4,221 contracts. This pairing yielded a put/call ratio of 0.37, which in theory favors optimistic traders. Still, as I mentioned earlier, investors need to be careful of reading too deeply into the ratio. It's here that options flow — a screener that focuses exclusively on big block transactions likely placed by institutional investors — can be instructive. Heading into the holiday weekend, net trade sentiment clocked in at $378,800 above parity, distinctly favoring the bulls. As compelling as the unusual options data is, the screener alone doesn't always provide a clear framework for when an anticipated move may materialize. Usually, transactions in the derivatives market feature multiple expiration dates, making inferences difficult. To remedy this challenge, we can apply statistical analysis. Unfortunately, statistics is a deceptively difficult practice in the investment markets. Taking the frequency of the desired outcome divided by the total number of events merely calculates the derivative probability or the outcome odds across the underlying dataset's entire distribution. What we're looking for is the conditional probability — the outcome odds across a specific subset of the data. However, conditional probabilities really can't be calculated using share price or its many derivatives because of the continuous signal problem. Another remedy must occur and that is the process of discretization — converting scalar signals into discrete states. This is where market breadth or sequences of accumulative and distributive sessions comes into play. In the past two months, the price action of BSX stock can be converted as a 4-6-U sequence: four up weeks, six down weeks, with a positive trajectory across the 10-week period. Admittedly, this conversion process compresses BSX's magnitude dynamism into a simple binary code. But the benefit is that this code segregates price action into distinct, discrete behavioral states — forming the basis for Markovian analysis. Essentially, we're looking for the likelihood of sentiment transition based off the 4-6-U sequence. From past analogs, we know that this sequence materialized 17 times since January 2019. Notably, in 64.71% of cases, the following week's price action results in upside, with a median return of 1.79%. Should the bulls maintain control of the market for a second week, investors may anticipate an additional performance boost of around 1.1%. Based on last Thursday's close of $104.32, BSX stock could potentially crack above the $107 level within the next two weeks. For those who want to roll the dice on the statistical narrative above, the 105/107 bull call spread expiring July 18 could be enticing. This transaction involves buying the $105 call and simultaneously selling the $107 call, for a net debit paid of $100, the most that can be lost in the trade. Should BSX stock rise through the short strike price ($107) at expiration, the maximum reward is also $100, a payout of 100%. Primarily, what makes this trade attractive is the implied shift in sentiment regime of the 4-6-U sequence. Ordinarily, BSX stock enjoys a fairly robust upside bias. As a baseline, the chance that a long position on any given week will be profitable is 56.47%. However, the 4-6-U adds 8.24 percentage points of favorable odds for the bullish speculator. To be clear, no forecasting model is perfect, particularly because the stock market is an open system, which means that outside catalysts can enter the paradigm and disrupt it. Still, the discretization process mentioned earlier for the purpose of applying Markovian principles helps us to empirically quantify our decision-making process. On the date of publication, Josh Enomoto did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The College-Major Gamble
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is Atlantic Intelligence, a newsletter in which our writers help you wrap your mind around artificial intelligence and a new machine age. Sign up here. When I was in college, the Great Recession was unfolding, and it seemed like I had made a big mistake. With the economy crumbling and job prospects going with it, I had selected as my majors … journalism and sociology. Even the professors joked about our inevitable unemployment. Meanwhile, a close friend had switched majors and started to take computer-science classes—there would obviously be opportunities there. But that conventional wisdom is starting to change. As my colleague Rose Horowitch writes in an article for The Atlantic, entry-level tech jobs are beginning to fade away, in part because of new technology itself: AI is able to do many tasks that previously required a person. 'Artificial intelligence has proved to be even more valuable as a writer of computer code than as a writer of words,' Rose writes. 'This means it is ideally suited to replacing the very type of person who built it. A recent Pew study found that Americans think software engineers will be most affected by generative AI. Many young people aren't waiting to find out whether that's true.' I spoke with Rose about how AI is affecting college students and the job market—and what the future may hold. This interview has been edited and condensed. Damon Beres: What do we actually know about how AI is disrupting the market for comp-sci majors? Rose Horowitch: There are a lot of tech executives coming out and saying that AI is replacing some of their coders, and that they just don't need as many entry-level employees. I spoke with an economics professor at Harvard, David Deming, who said that may be a convenient talking point—nobody wants to say We didn't hit our sales targets, so we have to lay people off. What we can guess is that the technology is actually making senior engineers more productive; therefore they need fewer entry-level employees. It's also one more piece of uncertainty that these tech companies are dealing with—in addition to tariffs and high interest rates—that may lead them to put off hiring. Damon: Tech companies do have a vested interest in promoting AI as such a powerful tool that it could do the work of a person, or multiple people. Microsoft recently laid thousands of people off, as you write in your article, and the company also said that AI writes or helps write 25 percent of their code—that's a helpful narrative for Microsoft, because Microsoft sells AI tools. At the same time, it does feel pretty clear to me that many different industries are dealing with the same issues. I've spoken about generative AI replacing entry-level work with prominent lawyers, journalists, people who work in tech—the worry feels real to me. Rose: I spoke with Molly Kinder, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies how AI affects the economy, and she said that she's worried that the bottom rung of the career ladder across industries is breaking apart. If you're writing a book, you may not need to hire a research assistant if you can use AI. It's obviously not going to be perfectly accurate, and it couldn't write the book for you, but it could make you more productive. Her concern, which I share, is that you still need people to get trained and then ascend at a company. The unemployment rate for young college graduates is already unusually high, and this may lead to more problems down the line that we can't even foresee. These early jobs are like apprenticeships: You're learning skills that you don't get in school. If you skip that, it's cheaper for the company in the short term, but what happens to white-collar work down the line? Damon: How are the schools themselves thinking about this reality—that they have students in their senior year facing a completely different prospect for their future than when they entered school four years ago? Rose: They're responding by figuring out how to produce graduates that are prepared to use AI tools in their work and be competitive applicants. The challenge is that the technology is changing so quickly—you need to teach students about what's relevant professionally while also teaching the fundamental skills, so that they're not just reliant on the machines. Damon: Your article makes this point that students should be focused less on learning a particular skill and more on studying something that's durable for the long term. Do you think students really will shift what they're studying? Will the purpose of higher education itself change somehow? Rose: It's likely that we'll see a decline in students studying computer science, and then, at some point, there will be too few job candidates, salaries will be pushed up, and more students will go in. But the most important thing that students can do—and it's so counterintuitive—is to study things that will give you human skills and soft skills that will help you endure in any industry. Even without AI, jobs are going to change. The challenge is that, in times of crisis, people tend to choose something preprofessional, because it feels safer. That cognitive bias can be unhelpful. Damon: You cover higher education in general. You're probably best known for the story you did about how elite college students can't read books anymore, which feels related to this discussion for obvious reasons. I'm curious to know more about why you were interested in exploring this particular topic. Rose: Higher ed, more than at any time in recent memory, is facing the question of what it is for. People are questioning the value of it much more than they did 10, 20 years ago. And so, these articles all fit into that theme: What is the value of higher ed, of getting an advanced degree? The article about computer-science majors shows that this thing that everyone thought is a sure bet doesn't seem to be. That reinforces why higher education needs to make the case for its value—how it teaches people to be more human, or what it's like to live a productive life in a society. Damon: There are so many crisis points in American higher education right now. AI is one of them. Your article about reading suggested a problem that may have emerged from other digital technologies. Obviously there have been issues stemming from the Trump administration. There was the Claudine Gay scandal. This is all in the past year or two. How do you sum it all up? Rose: Most people are starting to realize that the status quo is not going to work. There's declining trust in education, particularly from Republicans. A substantial portion of the country doesn't think higher ed serves the nation. The fact is that at many universities, academic standards have declined so much. Rigor has declined. Things cannot go on as they once did. What comes next, and who's going to chart that course? The higher-education leaders I speak with, at least, are trying to answer that question themselves so that it doesn't get defined by external forces like the Trump administration. Article originally published at The Atlantic
