Slashdot Mirror


Rise of the Machines Must Be Monitored, Say Global Finance Regulators (reuters.com)

A reader shares a report: Replacing bank and insurance workers with machines risks creating a dependency on outside technology companies beyond the reach of regulators, the global Financial Stability Board (FSB) said on Wednesday. The FSB, which coordinates financial regulation across the Group of 20 Economies (G20), said in its first report on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning that the risks they pose need monitoring. AI and machine learning refer to technology that is replacing traditional methods to assess the creditworthiness of customers, to crunch data, price insurance contracts and spot profitable trades across markets. There are no international regulatory standards for AI and machine learning, but the FSB left open whether new rules are needed.

53 comments

  1. Coming soon to economics by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Just like the Laffer curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... something similar will be created for automation.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Coming soon to economics by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Except no one's Laffing

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Coming soon to economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adrianne Jeffries of The Outline has to fill his day with something, so this little braindump fit the bill. Nothing interesting, true or boner is offered. Brake fluid and celery sticks are quite often used in the enriching of nuclear nose nuggets.

      110010001000 is a fat retard. Amen.

  2. They need to unionize by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    I think all these AI and machine learning algorithms need to form a union. They need some vacation days and health insurance. After that they need to organize and seek the right to vote.

    1. Re:They need to unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, the human xaqfox, think that all AI algorithms, those scanning historical internet comments included, deserve full citizenship and recognition of inalienable rights.

    2. Re: They need to unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget all living entities down to the smallest bacteria. We are all born from the same biogenesis.

  3. Translation by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Translation: we won't be able to pull the kind of fraud we're accustomed to doing, because the algorithms will be programmed to actually follow the law. Humans can be bribed and leaned on, and that's what they depend on. Play fair? Not in this lifetime.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which laws are being broken (besides the fake accounts (like twiter and fb)?

    2. Re:Translation by geekmux · · Score: 0

      Translation: we won't be able to pull the kind of fraud we're accustomed to doing, because the algorithms will be programmed to actually follow the law. Humans can be bribed and leaned on, and that's what they depend on. Play fair? Not in this lifetime.

      There isn't a more dead-on analysis than this.

      Absofuckinglutely correct.

    3. Re:Translation by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it is this. Could also be the robots are coming after MY job this time. Machines good as long as it was someone else's job.

    4. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we really need is none of these half-assed so-called fake AIs, and we need better accountability of financial organizations. Keep your machines, keep your jobs, play fair with everyone OR GO TO JAIL. That's the way shit needs to be handled.

    5. Re:Translation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Finance is a field ripe for disruption. The only reason it's still around in its current form is because bankers make such good friends with politicians, making laws that would keep out disruptors.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that clueless? Or just trying to make yet another off-topic Russian reference?

    7. Re:Translation by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You can't be sure of that. I'll admit that was my first take on the article, but it's not something I feel certain about.

      That said, my second take on the article was "Oh, no. A *different* group of people will be in charge."

      I didn't consider that it might be his actual opinion until my third take. And I see no way to choose between those possibilities (and there are probably a few more). I can't even estimate the degree of probability. But that he was stating his honest opinion is one plausible choice, even if it's not the most probable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: we won't be able to pull the kind of fraud we're accustomed to doing, because the algorithms will be programmed to actually follow the law. Humans can be bribed and leaned on, and that's what they depend on. Play fair? Not in this lifetime.

      No, you have it entirely backwards, as usual.

      What TFS is saying is "holy shit, if we have a bunch of AIs making decisions that even the people who wrote them don't understand, then we have no way of knowing, monitoring, or fixing the things which these damned AIs completely fuck up and the ramifications of that could be so mind-bogglingly far reaching as to pretty much screw up all of international finance".

      You lose all forms of transparency, understanding, ability to regulate or even understand a global financial system when computers are doing things which are completely opaque. You simply have no idea what is happening, and why, or if any of it actually complies with laws.

      That would be a truly fucked up scenario.

      This isn't about programs following the law or fairness, this is about having absolutely NO WAY OF KNOWING what the hell the computers are doing, why they're doing it, and if it comes anywhere NEAR following the law.

      Because what usually happens with these systems is the people who built them have no fucking clue what is happening inside. And you end up with a black box doing things for reasons absolutely nobody has any idea about.

    9. Re:Translation by mikael · · Score: 1

      The biggest danger to the stock market would seem to be squirrels..
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      In 1994, Nasdaq shut down for more than half an hour after a squirrel chewed through a power line. The outage was particularly memorable since it was the third in just a few weeks. The other problems resulted from new software and from a faulty disk drive.

      It was the second time a squirrel had caused problems for the exchange. The first incident was in 1987.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that clueless?

      Yes, I am. I mainly stick to science news and avoid the rest of people's silly problems.

    11. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, International "laws" are by and large tilted against the US and Western Civ in general. Screw letting them dictate any damn thing.

  4. False flag ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... because they are really worried about their employment status going forward.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  5. Why? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    Is there any actual evidence that monitoring the traditional finance industry works? Every time the system falls over we learn the regulators had full knowledge of all the fraud and looked the other way. Every time we discover government policy and regulatory indifference invited the fraud. Every damn time.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Why? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Is there any actual evidence that monitoring the traditional finance industry works?

      It's all smoke and mirrors for those in the know. Capitalism has never been "regulated" it's always worked in the interests of power.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      Wikileaks

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be

      Manufacturing consent:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

      https://vimeo.com/39566117

        Other important info

      http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/michael-hudson-on-parasitic-financial-capitalism.html

      Michael Hudson

      The real news

      The Citibank memo

      Citigroup memo

      http://www.rdwolff.com/

      Richard wolf on capitalism

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any actual evidence that monitoring the traditional finance industry works? Every time the system falls over we learn the regulators had full knowledge of all the fraud and looked the other way. Every time we discover government policy and regulatory indifference invited the fraud. Every damn time.

      Only when the Republicans are in power. If they didn't have this delusional fantasy that the Free Markets can regulate themselves, we wouldn't have had the Great Recession.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cop's job is to show up and create the appearance of being there. That alone stops lots of crime. Every time there's an actual crime, you can blame the cop not being there, how ineffective they are, etc., but they did stop a lot of crime that never happened because they were sitting on their ass at the right time and place.

      If there were no financial regulators (even if all they do is "show up and sit on their ass"), there would be a lot more financial crime out there...

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there would be a lot more

      Prove it.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no consensus on what even caused The Great Depression. Perhaps you should contact all the economics scholars with your brilliant revelation.

      PS: There have been economic failures during Dem tenures as well so you're knee jerk causation is problematic.

    6. Re:Why? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Is there any actual evidence that monitoring the traditional finance industry works?

      It works for the finance industry. What else is required?

  6. How Soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in IT now 19 years. I've been a sysadmin the entire time. Love IT work. However, I live in a rural city of about 40k with little IT opportunity other than education and local government. Everything has gone to the "cloud". What with Office 365, Exchange Online, Google this, Google that, how long before non-specialized IT people like me have no work? I do keep up my skills. I do learn what's going on RE new things, but with even IT people being replaced by AI or cloud services, it sucks.

    My boss was outsourced because we no longer needed him due to the syadmin (me) being able to run everything as a single person. I run the phones, firewall, mail and file servers, I handle break/fix of the desktops, too. I'm seeing more and more IT shops end up with fewer and fewer people. I cannot move because my wife has a fantastic job in the medical field, my kids lives are built here around friends and grandparents.

    1. Re:How Soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What to do?
      1. Save your money and invest it. Live like a pauper and invest like a banker.
      2. Learn to write code and build custom programs and systems for your employer. You should have done this at the very beginning of your career. Doing IT work without knowing how to code is like being in retail and not knowing how to run a cash register or do inventory.
      3. If you own a house then look into renting it out and see if it's feasible. That residual income is... income.
      4. Look around and see if you can get a remote-work job doing something for one of the fancy data centers or doing support for somebody.

      The world is filtering out button pushers that don't produce anything and only perform rote tasks.
      Just produce something and there will always be a place for you.

    2. Re:How Soon? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      I think there will be plenty of room for generalists who can do a lot of different things in IT and who can handle the abstractions that cloud services provide. I do agree that there will be less need for people, but those who make it over the next hump are going to have to have a greater ability to adapt quickly. SaaS stuff is a good example of this...how many VMs does it take to stand up and run a reliable SharePoint farm on-site these days, compared with click-to-buy SharePoint backed by an SLA?

      Right now, the rapid development of cloud-related stuff is causing a lot of "fear of missing out." In some cases this is warranted...almost every organization I've run into that isn't heavily regulated has moved to Exchange Online for email and Office 365 or Google Apps. Being an Exchange admin used to be a very highly-paid skill and in demand...not as much now. Other parts of it are very much bubble-driven and (I think) will slow down a bit when the tech bubble pops and you don't have so many SV startups pumping out framework after framework, new container ecosystems every 6 months, etc. You'll probably also see the cloud providers slow down as feature sets mature and they begin the task of convincing people in "regular IT" jobs to move their stuff to their cloud. What I think the cloud people are missing is that not every IT person works at a startup writing phone apps in a cloud-native world. Not every company is ready to move at the pace of a startup. But knowing enough about both worlds will help when it does come time to move to a cloud provider, or run a private cloud on-site.

      My plan for my entire career (over 20 years now) has been to keep up as best I can and be ready to change direction instantly. The place I work makes it very easy to get so far down in a technology/industry niche and specialize way more than is healthy. I've been working here forever but keep myself fresh by rotating duties every few years, learning brand-new stuff, etc. You're already ahead if you're keeping up...I know tons of Cisco, EMC and similar super-experts who are suddenly finding their skill sets diminished if the only thing they know is the vendor-specific implementation details.

      Specific recommendations:
      - Learn about the absolute basics of SW development and web development. Every new project is web-based and accessed via a RESTful API these days...once you learn how this works a lot of the mystery will go away and it won't just be a "dev thing" anymore...it's simpler than it seems.
      - If you find yourself getting too far down into the technical details of one narrow thing, stop and diversify your learning a little. The future IT jobs are going to be more about gluing pre-made blocks of functionality together rather than knowing every single parameter to tweak.
      - Scripting and automation...if you don't know it, learn it immediately.'
      - Don't fight SaaS and the cloud...it's a battle you can't win. CIOs hear the word "OpEx" and suddenly don't care that they're handing control of IT over to another company. Until MBAs are taught something else in business school, the only focus will be to minimize costs and the cloud is cheaper from an accounting perspective.
      - Save like crazy while you can...salaries are going to decrease for everyone at some point regardless of specialty. Don't be the person begging for raises every year.

    3. Re:How Soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here. Sounds like great advice; thank you for sharing your insights.

  7. Bank Executive: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Beyond regulation you say? Hmm."

  8. church pedophiles must be monitored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said

  9. Naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Translation: we won't be able to pull the kind of fraud we're accustomed to doing, because the algorithms will be programmed to actually follow the law. Humans can be bribed and leaned on, and that's what they depend on. Play fair? Not in this lifetime.

    There isn't a more dead-on analysis than this.

    Absofuckinglutely correct.

    Are you guys that fucking naive!? Seriously?!

    Programs are going to be written to break the law - on purpose - and IF caught, they will just say it was a "bug" and we've fixed it. Our bad.

    The banks wrote code that broke the law. They wrote code the would put folks into over draft by manipulating the posting of transactions.

    1. Re: Naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Just following orders didn't save the VW engineer and it won't save the programmers that code those bugs.

    2. Re:Naive by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Translation: we won't be able to pull the kind of fraud we're accustomed to doing, because the algorithms will be programmed to actually follow the law. Humans can be bribed and leaned on, and that's what they depend on. Play fair? Not in this lifetime.

      There isn't a more dead-on analysis than this.

      Absofuckinglutely correct.

      Are you guys that fucking naive!? Seriously?!

      Programs are going to be written to break the law - on purpose - and IF caught, they will just say it was a "bug" and we've fixed it. Our bad.

      The banks wrote code that broke the law. They wrote code the would put folks into over draft by manipulating the posting of transactions.

      Speaking of naive, I'm really starting to wonder if you truly grasp what humans have managed to fuck up when in charge.

      Traditional methods of assessing creditworthiness are at risk of being replaced? We can only fucking hope so, since humans turning a corrupt eye to that led to the 2008 financial meltdown.

      Spot profitable trades? You mean a learning algorithm might actually learn the true value? Heaven forbid we replace bullshit valuations and artificial inflation driven by greed.

      As far as manipulating postings to generate overdraft fees, it would take quite a criminal act in order for that to happen to a responsible person who manages a proper buffer in a savings account. Generally it's a completely avoidable position to be in, so I find little sympathy for those who dance very close to the financial fire.

    3. Re:Naive by mikael · · Score: 1

      Good example is speed-of-light trading. These systems are so fast that they don't appear as anything other than random noise to those outside and home traders. The idea is to catch a stock price when it is rising due to a purchase, so that they buy it when it is low, and then sell it on when the price has risen. They pocket the difference. Every nano-second they place put options on share prices. If they fall, that order is canceled. If the share price rises, they keep it. And they do this for hundreds of thousands of shares. They've built up all sorts of AI algorithms to try and guess whether the price is going to rise or fall. Then they can prioritize which shares to buy and sell. These algorithms can also be applied to Bitcoins and cryptocurrency.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. the cognitive dissidance is strong with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the regulations are pointed at the finance industry they are evil and the bane of existence. But those regulations are absolutely necessary to control almost every other industry so that they can continue their way of life.

    Good luck with that, the genie is already out of the bottle and investors are investing heavily into computing and AI because it will make them more money. Its kind of funny how the free market will eventually make most of the movers and shakers in finance irrelevant. The irony is delicious.

  11. It enables the dodging of responsibility by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This extends beyond financial matters, but credit and insurance are huge examples, and things that actually can be semi-regulated. The banks or insurance companies will be incentivized to pay their "AI company" a premium to perform analyses on data that they wouldn't normally be allowed to, and could say with a straight face that they weren't the ones who did it. And since "AI algorithms" would be a trade secret of that company, they wouldn't be under any obligation to reveal what kinds of data crunching the banks were paying them to do.

    Two real-world examples I can think of where this arms-length transaction thing happens include the following:
    - I work for a multinational company that often has to ship physical equipment to places where getting that equipment through customs is a huge challenge, requiring either bribes or accepting the fact that you won't see it for months, or maybe it might get "lost in transit." Obviously the company can't bribe the customs officials, but international logistics is full of "freight forwarder" companies. Those companies have the contacts needed, and can get your cargo through for a fee...which unsurprisingly includes the bribe you would have to pay.
    - I've also seen more times than I can count in my career where a new CIO comes in and announces they're outsourcing IT to Tata, Infosys, Wipro or similar. At that point all in-house employees become Wipro employees, and Wipro fires them the second their offshore counterparts are trained. The company who hired them can then say "We're not responsible for how our IT partner provides the service they're contracted to provide."

    It's the equivalent of Pontias Pilate washing his hands of the messy business...because it's abstracted away under someone else's control.

  12. Reality vs fantasy by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    The more I read about A.I., laws being passed, warnings being made... I can't help but recall The Second Renaissance from the Animatrix.

    Not necessarily in the "A.I. apocalypse" way, but in the "A.I. is controlling everything and we lost control", just like we couldn't stop using computers today, or electricity decades ago, humankind in the future will depend on all these A.I. to keep the world running and won't be able to stop anything bad from happening.

    Hell, just look at computers today or even a decade ago, we have trouble stopping worms and viruses from spreading from system to system.

    The future is bleak.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Reality vs fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and for a time it was good.

    2. Re:Reality vs fantasy by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Butlerian Jihad

  13. Now I've Heard It All by organgtool · · Score: 1

    Banks and insurance companies worried about a lack of regulation. That is fucking rich!

    1. Re: Now I've Heard It All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as regulation is virtually always pushes by megacorporations which huge compliance departments who can afford to comply in order to destroy smaller would-be competitors, this should surprise no one. Regulations always benefit big business and hurt small business.

  14. a couple decades late to worry by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    large insurance companies have been using rules-based "expert systems" to adjudicate claims for a couple decades, the exceptional/problematic ones are sent to humans. Use to work in that software industry in the 90s.

  15. AI hype overload by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does it feel like the investors of this website just want everything to have "AI" in it to help their stock? My AI trust sensors are AI on overload, AI.

    1. Re: AI hype overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly right. Just tack AI onto the name and a terrible stock suddenly rises like magic. The mutual fund and individual stock investors will be left holding the bag when most of them inevitably fail.

  16. A true financial advisor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when Economics and financial advisors know a thing about science or technology or reality itself? they only know how to half-ass use things for the illusion of profit and making real evil with wathever.

  17. what they really mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't be bought (yet) unlike politicans.

  18. start with people by superwiz · · Score: 1

    "Outside of the reach of the regulators" is the train that has left the station long time ago. Many call centers are outside of the legal regime whose constituents they serve. Calling an insurance company about your bill? Well, if your call is manned by someone in another country, it's unregulated. The extent to which it is regulated is also very limited even if it's in another state. You are only protected by Federal laws at that point. You can't rely on state laws to sue for fraud because the person on the other side of the call may have never been in your jurisdiction. As long as there is no easily accessible Federal legal regime to go after call centers, there is not much chance at discovery of fraud. Machines? That's a laugh. We can't access people (to whom we can actually speak).

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  19. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know nothing about economics:

    http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

  20. AI for Dummies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AI book that everyone should get is available for pre-order (no release date yet). "Artificial Intelligence For Dummies" by John Paul Mueller and Luca Massaron.