←back to thread

684 points prettyblocks | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

I mean anything in the 0.5B-3B range that's available on Ollama (for example). Have you built any cool tooling that uses these models as part of your work flow?
Show context
spiritplumber ◴[] No.42786957[source]
My husband and me made a stock market analysis thing that gets it right about 55% of the time, so better than a coin toss. The problem is that it keeps making unethical suggestions, so we're not using it to trade stock. Does anyone have any idea what we can do with that?
replies(6): >>42787033 #>>42787185 #>>42787294 #>>42787375 #>>42787659 #>>42789438 #
Etheryte ◴[] No.42787185[source]
Have you backtested this in times when markets were not constantly green? Nearly any strategy is good in the good times.
replies(1): >>42788359 #
spiritplumber ◴[] No.42788359[source]
yep. the 55% is over a few years.
replies(1): >>42790290 #
1. kortilla ◴[] No.42790290[source]
Right, but if 55% is avg over the last few years, “buy stock” is going to be correct more than not.

https://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Stock-Yo-Yo.pdf

replies(1): >>42791373 #
2. Etheryte ◴[] No.42791373[source]
I think this is a good highlight of why context and reality checks are incredibly important when doing work like this. At first glance, it might look like 55% is a really good result, but in the previous year, a flat buy every day strategy would've been right 56.7% of the time.
replies(1): >>42798262 #
3. dutchbookmaker ◴[] No.42798262[source]
55% means basically nothing in this context if even money. Long 45% to 55% is most likely completely random because it is symmetric with shorting 45% to 55%

Exactly what you would expect from a language model making random stock picks.