@ItsBitcoinBruh It also makes zero sense. Like all of tech utopists he wrongly imagines that demand does not plummet to zero. Technological progress like he is talking (dreaming) about would be massively disinflationary which means taking on debt would be a horrible idea.
Update on this, I think a big reason this particular model was having this issue was that the early samples were way different than the later ones.
I was vaguely aware that this could be true but had no idea about the extent to which it was a problem.
A longstanding issue with my model is that the raw results (where it is 100% active in every asset) can look pretty great, but trying to dial back the activity level to only isolate "the best" trades is maddeningly difficult.
Once the bug was fixed and I ran a longer duration sim (which was the thing I was trying to do that actually led me to find the bug to begin with), the composite calibration (the part that was driving me crazy before) started working way better - progress!
@HellaMista@aaronjmate It was a reference to a John Quincy Adams quote. If anything the proposition was "rigged" by the Mearsheimer/Walt side - presumably they are the ones who chose it. It suggests the founding fathers agree with their foreign policy. BTW, I agree with them.
I'm wondering if this is somehow related to the way that LLMs often come up with good answers, yet have a complete inability to ascertaining the quality of the answer they gave.
This model isn't AI but is calibrated using a somewhat AI-adjacent algorithm (differential evolution)
A longstanding issue with my model is that the raw results (where it is 100% active in every asset) can look pretty great, but trying to dial back the activity level to only isolate "the best" trades is maddeningly difficult.
I've been working on this for ages trying all kinds of ideas and feel like I'm getting nowhere. Just frustrating given the way the raw predictions "look" is pretty much ideal - basically a straight line up and to the right