I propose a secondary 'book value only' stock market in addition to the current

What just a minute.

Folks quote other sources all day long on this forum, which aren't 'your words or facts'.

In fact, your comment is a meaningless statement. Facts do not belong to me, or you,. or anyone, they are just facts. So how in hell does it matter where or how the facts are obtained? AI will source it's claims of fact, so it comes from a website, somewhere, and how is that different than how we've been using websites to supplement our arguments? Before AI, I would manually do it, and all AI does is do it for me. AS long as I make it known that a given text was AI and not me, how is that different than quoting text from websites, especially if I take ownership (but not authorship) of what is put in the comment?

WTF is the difference? AI is a corvette, where before I was using a volkswagen.

THAT is why I say 'all the matters is the argument"

If you disagree, state your case.

If I were using AI to create a work of creativity, a book, a story, prose, or poetry, and claimed it was my own, THEN YOU'D HAVE A POINT. But that is NOT what is going on here, I'm just using it as a 'debate aid' where writing style or concepts like 'authorship' are irrelevant......where 'all the matters is the argument'.

 

I haven't thought that one through, whether to allow them to be traded on demand, or require a holding period. But, this type of stock would not be the kind of stock someone who is trying to make a fast buck, anyway, it's the kind of stock that would attract long term investors. It wouldn't probably be a good idea for the fast moving tech world. one can achieve the stability I'm thinking of by investing in a mutual fund, or something similar, but what if someone wants to invest in only a few companies, and would prefer a steady as she goes type of stock, which would be this kind of stock, it's not volatile by design. It won't go up fast, but it won't fall fast, either. Some people like rocking boats, others like cruise liners. There would be no bidding, so algorithms are out, and for some, that is an attraction.

I'm no expert, but I'm going to run it by some folks who are, see what they think.

 

What kind of argument is that?

There is no obligation to stick to 'the issues'. There's a lot going on in life beyond the immediate issues, we debate them all day long. Hell, why not this thread? In my entire life, I never heard of anyone proposing the idea, and I've often wondered why. So, I thought I would, see what others think. Some like it, some don't. That's the nature of something new. I would have posted this in the finance forum, but all of the posts over there are real old, so it doesn't appear to be a lively forum, so I posted it here.

As for it not happening, note that every tree was once a seed.

You gotta start a new idea somewhere, but first you have to find out if it is a good idea.

 

I just assumed you had used ChatGPT. But maybe you used Bing. Do you pay ChatGPT? I wasn't aware that Bing serves up ChatGPT 4.0 for free. The free version of ChatGPT is 3.5.
I don't think you mentioned anything about Copilot.

 

I use them all. Bing uses Chat 4 because it will peruse the internet. Chat 3.5's database cuts off in 2021 or 2, I forget. But Chat 4 behaves someone differently than Bing, so I don't know why they are different, though their output is more or less the same, or similar. I mean, I'm not seeing them conflict. However,. Bing really messes up sometimes, doesn't understand my question. I like Copilot, and Chat 4. I'm hearing that there are more AIs coming out, and they do some amazing things. Chat 3.5 has some compatible apps you can obtain built in, such as a PDF reader, and it will summarize it, and that's great for court documents. www.summarize.tech will summarize YT videos, which is great.
Yes, I subscribe to Chat 4. Chat 4 doesn't do annotations and hotlinks like Bing does, but it does provide links.

 

Regarding the risks of negative impact from this AI tech, as I notice you've mentioned in this thread, there are objective facts that point toward some of possibilities.

For example I was having a discussion with a co-worker once about how I was surprised when I had mentioned an irregularity in one of my project's work flows to our mutual department manager whose only response was pathetically generic and of zero value. Ah, surely you didn't really expect anything else my co-worker said. You know that guy just flips through his rolodex of generic responses to this kinda stuff.

That is about all I see from AI. No synthesis whatsoever, yet.

But, its generic rolodex responses are much more substantial than this former manager I had worked with for many years.

These therefore can be used to to give the appearance that a manager actually gave some consideration to a situation that needed some real help. I don't see AI as facilitating things in such a direction, but also I don't see AI as causing it either. I work with many folks that seem to actually believe that toeing a generic line of corporate bullshit is not only of value but uniformly expected of everyone. And I'm not referring to corporate practices that are not bullshit. Most of these practices are actually quite important. And in petrochem answers to some of the problems can be very difficult to achieve with full certainty. So more often than not there can be tradeoffs involved as like in every other business there is not infinite time and money to do stuff.

So there will be managers that will to some extent lean on this AI tech to get stuff off their plate, whether it actually adds value to getting anything done or not.

Your comparison to cars is alright. How about atomic energy? How has that worked out? Fukushima? Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? How about that decommissioned SONGS plant just up the coast from you? All is kosher with the plan to store that waste in place? I've discussed these issues concerning problems with nuclear power before with you, I think. So this would be another analogy to consider lest your characterization of my post as simply a naysayer falls flat for lacking depth.

Another consideration is the lineage or genealogy of AI. What was it that AI was first trained upon and became better than humans at? Games my man, games. And what is the primary objective that these programs are made for when designed to play games? To win.

Notice the portion of this video that explains what the humans instructed the soccer playing robots to do, and what the robots figured out on their own and how they did it.

 

Your idea would cause a catastrophic devaluation of virtually every stock traded on the exchanges with the exception of some of the money center banks currently trading below tangible book. As an example, Apple is a widely held stock among institutions and individual investors due to its steady cash flow generation, enormous customer base, and technological leadership. Its stock closed on Friday @ $176.55. Its book value is $4.79. Even Verizon, a relatively steady as she goes vestige of the old blue chip phone company stocks has a listed book value of approx. 1/2 of its current stock price.

 

Good luck with that. Nobody will list on your new exchange.

 

Would never fly, the Casino would no longer be immediately profitable to the House or Players.

 

Yes words are cheaper and easier than actions.

 

Enron bite the big five in the arse. Hell Enron bite that arse right off.

 

Why can't you?

 

AI is in it's incipient stages. Who knows where it will lead us? We can speculate, that's about it.

It's a tool, like anything else. Some fear it will be the obsoletion of mankind, but, I say, well, just hit the off switch, so what's the problem?

I"ve seen that video before.

It's very useful for writing books, not to replace your own writing, but for ideas. I had an idea for a book, and I asked it to give me 20 chapter titles related to the idea, and it came up with a beautiful list of items that hadn't occurred to me. All I had to do, thereafter, was write the thing. AI can write, but what it can't do is write better than a human who can write well. It has no 'soul', and that fact comes through in loud colors, if you are sensitive to it. Metaphorically speaking, it will write something for you in Red, Green and Blue, but where cadmium, seafoam and cyan, would be far more interesting and give more impact. For matter-of-fact reports, it does very well and is a time saver, but one must fact check everything, because AI might source some disreputable website. It hasn't figured out that justthenews isn't a reliable source. But, I'm sure that can be fixed with relative ease.

 

I think you misunderstood how it would work out. There would be NO duplicate stocks, one in this avenue, and another of same in the normal market. Either you go this route, or you go the regular route. Stocks available on this exchange would not be available anywhere else, so your concern of devaluation becomes moot, it's just as bonds do not devalue the stock market as an investment alternative. It's another type of investment environment.

 

You could easily be right, I don't know, but I sure as hell am not going to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet.

 

It's just an idea. You don't have to cop an attitude.

 

I don't know, maybe I could. Ideas, if viable, have a way of growing. Who knows where it will lead, and, indeed, if it will lead, anywhere.

 

Even if there were duped stocks, note that these are not 'cheaper stocks' because you are giving up the upside potential for a safe down side potential, i.e., don't go up fast, or fall fast. It's a different type of investment strategy so there would be no encroachment. No one would say 'oh, let's go here because they are cheaper', they would only go there because they are willing to give up volatility for stability. You give up something, you get something. It would be chill instead of thrill. It appeals to a different customer, just as fig newtons don't encroach on donuts. Since the greater part of 'book value' is the value of fixtures, machinery, leases, inventory, property, cash in bank, trademarks, etc., tangible things, the value could never fall below that and so this type of stock has a built in downside safety net, it's not subject to the whims of the bidding environment of the regular stock market.

 

You've seen this clip before and yet you end this post that you are sure it can all be fixed with relative ease.

I think you are missing the novelty involved with this stuff.

You may have missed one of the key metrics Hinton mentioned, that AI is presently functioning with about 1% of human neural connections, and that once the algorithms are coded, no one understands exactly how they work. This stuff is not the same thing as, say for example, machining: working materials to exact tolerances to build SR71s, phones and spaceships.

This is from the guy who pioneered neural networks beginning half a century ago and now it is on the cusp of self-coding AI.

However, all of that being said, I not only have no objection to your interest in it and use of it, I find it admirable.

***
I don't think book value valuation would do what you want. What is it that you want? We may agree on the objective. For example, if Volcker era savings account rates had been sustained, I'd never had had the need to risk NYSE or NASDAQ investing. No risk 8% monthly compounded investment vehicle: sign me up! As it is, my long term average with equity investing is about the same spot, 8%. These past couple of years I've made some nice gains above this. I've made some lucky booms on a few selections and gone bust on one.

Hey, here's a tip: Fidelity is paying 5% on cash balances right now!

 

I simply rejected the idea and responded to what you wrote. Sorry if it offended you.

 

We shall see where AI takes us, it's a brave new world.

Because the largest part of 'book value', are tangible assets (well, trademarks, too) if a stock's value is devalued, it can't fall below the built in value of it's tangible assets [where 'good will' can shrink or expand, but such is tied to performance, rather than the whims of the bidding marketplace, twitter rumours, and the like] so it has a built in safety net. For this safety, our growth will be based on real value assessments, not the rumours and whims of the bidding market place. Also, it would be free from algorithmic distortion.

Consider the variety we have in our everyday lives – from the countless options in stores to the diverse array of investment opportunities available. Just because there are existing investments offering slow but steady growth doesn't mean there isn't room for innovation. After all, isn't choice a fundamental principle of a free market?

While mutual funds and ETFs cater to investors seeking stability and low volatility, my proposed "book value only" stock exchange offers a distinct alternative. By focusing on individual stocks rather than a pool of assets, it provides investors with a unique angle on achieving less risk and steady growth. This approach hasn't been explored before (or I don't think it has), offering a fresh perspective to the market.

So, rather than seeing it as redundant, consider this as an additional option for investors looking for a conservative yet innovative approach to growth. It's about expanding choices and offering something new to meet the diverse needs of investors

 

Waste of time effort and money. And subject to all sorts of abuses. Congress gets rich enough without being able to get bribes to change valuations of stocks and bonds. The only real change we need right now is to get congressmen out of the stock market.

 

But your comment went beyond just 'rejecting', it implied I was copping out, that's how it read to me, and I think it's quite clear you were implying it. You said, essentially, 'words are cheaper than action', as if I had some obligation to implement the idea. If I did have an obligation, and was rationalizing ways to avoid it, you'd have a point, but your point is moot. but, really, there is no obligation. People on internet forums can suggest ideas without shouldering the responsibility of actually having to implement the ideas. Tossing ideas around is a intellectual pastime, we're not in some kind of a corporate strategy room.

 

And what isn't subject to all sorts of abuses?

Yes, and Lord Kelvin, a prominent physicist and mathematician in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, he reportedly said, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."