Artificial Intelligence, Neuroscience, Quantitative Finance and the unedited thoughts of a soon-to-be robot

Updates from December, 2008 Follow me on Twitter | View my gallery | Show Articles | Show Blog Posts

  • Rod Furlan 4:46 pm on December 28, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Pragmatic Automated Trading – Part 1 

    This article is part of a series dedicated to explaining a no-nonsense approach to the development of automated trading agents. This series is aimed towards people with a computer science background with or without trading experience.

    futurama_0601_wideweb__470x330,0The development of automated trading agents is one of the most challenging and rewarding applications of artificial intelligence to date. It is rewarding because success generally translates into an account padded with profits and it is challenging because it pits your creations against the combined intelligence of millions of other agents around the globe.

    I will be honest with you, the road to profits is full of misleading signs and dangerous detours. Many of you will fail not because you are not smart or talented enough but because you might decide that the personal cost of such venture might just be too high for you.

    The market is a formidable foe and to beat it you will have to immerse yourself into it and crack the code from the inside. To create truly intelligent agents you will have to learn many things that will change the way you perceive the world around you.

    If you are threading down this path just for the money I can save you a lot of trouble by telling you to go spend your time with something else. There are easier ways to make money out there that do not require the Herculean amount of work and research that is necessary to consistently beat the markets.

    What do you need to get started:

    • A good computer. Something reliable and reasonably fast. You might need more processing power later on but you should not worry about it right now. Do not spend money on a computer just to get started – it is not worth it.
    • A broker that provides API access to market data and execution. Ideally the broker should also provide a live “paper trading” environment that you could place trades against to test your execution code. I recommend Interactive Brokers as a good starter brokerage firm.
    • Solid programming skills with the language you decide to use. This is not optional and it isn’t the kind of thing you can “learn as you go”. If you don’t have prior programming experience I recommend that you dedicate enough time to learn as much as you can before you get started. It isn’t enough to be able to write code that works – you need to be able to write efficient code that is both maintainable and reliable.
    • stats1A passion for Math – or at least the ability to force yourself to like it. There is no way around it as math will be the main weapon in your arsenal. Don’t think you can make do by simply using formulas you don’t quite understand – you would not stand a chance. It is crucial that you master all the mathematical concepts you decide to use in your trading systems.
    • An unshakeable and obsessive desire to succeed.

    Next on Part 2:
    The Scientific-Minimalist-Economic (SME) approach to Automated Trading

     
    • Duncan Krebs 9:35 pm on February 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Nicely written, just spent the last two years of my life dedicated to building something sustainable and you have a lot of good points. Math however in my opinion is not the only way to create alpha. Good architecture with the ability to monitor a large segment of the market as well as creative web crawling goes a long way. Also clever frameworks for taking like you say complexity in the universe and boiling it down to something simple is where the innovation happens. Will stop by more often, like your points. – Duncan Krebs

  • Rod Furlan 1:45 pm on December 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Science is Culture 

    I rarely have time to read magazines. In this day and age where everything is just a click away, I never find myself offline long enough to justify the need for a magazine. Last week when I was flying to Las Vegas I was fortunate enough to come across an issue of SEED Magazine. I read it nonstop from take-off to landing.

    SEED = (Wired - douchebaggery) * 0.3 + (SciAm - boring) * 0.7

     
  • Rod Furlan 1:22 pm on December 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    On Free Will 

    I have an issue with the concept of free will because for free will to exist it would require that information could be created out of nothing. My position might be counter-intuitive at first, but think about it:

    Scenario #1: There is no free will and information cannot be created, just derived from previously existing knowledge. We are born with biological biases and within an environment that is not under our control. The environment will dictate what experiences we will have and what knowledge we will acquire while our biological biases will determine how we will derive new information from it. Information is derived and then re-derived and through recursion, we begin to exhibit complex emergent behavior that appears to be unpredictable.

    Scenario #2: There is free will and ‘somehow’ we make information available to our mental faculties that is not sourced on pre-existing knowledge. The world stops making sense and we begin creating incredible explanations for the phenomenon – i.e. soul, spirit, fairies.

    Do I even need bring up Occam’s razor on this one?

     
  • Rod Furlan 12:55 pm on December 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    The new Lynxmotion Phoenix Hexapod kit 

    I was just checking out the new Phoenix Hexapod kit from Lynxmotion. What a beautiful little machine – I absolutely love its design and the way it moves. For around $1000 dolars you get:


    You can order yours from Trossen Robotics :)

     
  • Rod Furlan 1:43 am on December 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    On the Acquisition and Culling of Beliefs 

    Last night I spent some time thinking about what exactly makes the belief systems of religion and science so different. If we take this discussion to a higher level of abstraction we would be forced to agree that both religion and science represent incomplete belief systems that rely on certain dogmas to assert their validity.

    My definition of incomplete in this case pertains to the existence of corner-stone dogmas that must not be challenged for the belief system to be valid. In contrast, I would call a believe system “complete” when such dogmas are not necessary. It goes without saying that such “complete” belief system can only ever exist as a theoretical construct for use in thought experiments – you will not find it in the real world.

    Following this train of thought I was able to isolate a single yet crucial difference that makes the scientific belief system superior than the religious belief system. 

    Both science and religion have rules in place to acquire new beliefs. 

    Science uses empiric observation and experiments while each religion has their own methods – new saints, the teaching of a reincarnated master, and so on. The critical difference isn’t necessarily the way those different systems acquire knowledge but in a crucial device that is present in the scientific method but it is lacking on most religions as far as I know.

    Any information system that is supposed to manage knowledge with the intent of learning the truth about any topic must have two basic kinds of rules to be successful. The first rule set would be for knowledge acquisition which is present in both religion and science. The other rule set would be for knowledge culling and is used to remove unfit beliefs from the pool of knowledge of the system.

    Most religions (if not all) lack formal rules for the culling of unfit beliefs.

    Without a rule-set to remove beliefs from the pool of accepted knowledge any belief system would eventually evolve into a bloated mess of contradictory teachings, rules and expectations. What exacerbates the problem for most religions is that to cull a once divine instruction from the belief system would generaly imply that god (or any given deity) has a flawed reign over the flow of knowledge that is passed on to followers – which I believe most religion adepts would not be willing to accept.

    In summary: Both religion and science are belief systems that rely on dogmas to assert themselves. While both systems have rules to acquire new knowledge, most (if not all) religions lack generally accepted rules to invalidate previously divine rules that were found to be wrong. That leads to desperate efforts to make them right with disregard to the truth itself. Ex. Dinosaurs in Noah’s ark.

     
  • Rod Furlan 3:20 pm on December 12, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Wireclub.com – Over a Million Served! 

    Wireclub.com is one of the businesses I currently own and it has just recently reached an important milestone – over one million users have chosen Wireclub.com as their social network of choice!

    I am off to celebrate now :)

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel