The host, Andrew Walker, questions the long-term viability of simple rules-based investing. Since AI excels at following "if X, then Y" logic, any easily codifiable investment strategy faces the risk of being automated, its alpha competed away by faster, more powerful computer models.

Related Insights

AI's core strength is hyper-sophisticated pattern recognition. If your daily tasks—from filing insurance claims to diagnosing patients—can be broken down into a data set of repeatable patterns, AI can learn to perform them faster and more accurately than a human.

Ken Griffin is skeptical of AI's role in long-term investing. He argues that since AI models are trained on historical data, they excel at static problems. However, investing requires predicting a future that may not resemble the past—a dynamic, forward-looking task where these models inherently struggle.

AI development history shows that complex, hard-coded approaches to intelligence are often superseded by more general, simpler methods that scale more effectively. This "bitter lesson" warns against building brittle solutions that will become obsolete as core models improve.

If a marketer's primary function is to react to and optimize for algorithms, their job is highly susceptible to being automated. True value lies in strategic thinking, human insight, and abilities that AI cannot replicate, rather than engaging in short-sighted tactical execution that AI will inevitably master.

Historically, investment tech focused on speed. Modern AI, like AlphaGo, offers something new: inhuman intelligence that reveals novel insights and strategies humans miss. For investors, this means moving beyond automation to using AI as a tool for generating genuine alpha through superior inference.

David Kaiser suggests that as AI becomes ubiquitous in investing, a "tiptoes at a parade" problem emerges where no one gains an edge. By intentionally not using AI to constantly evolve his process, he believes his firm can be differentiated. The alpha may lie in the systematic, old-school approach that AI-driven consensus overlooks.

David Kaiser of Methodical Investments posits a contrarian view on AI's market impact. Instead of creating perfect efficiency, he argues AI and the data it processes might actually create more mispricings and inefficiencies. This provides opportunities for disciplined, rules-based strategies that don't constantly adapt to short-term noise.

In a world where AI can efficiently predict outcomes based on past data, predictable behavior becomes less valuable. Sam Altman suggests that the ability to generate ideas that are both contrarian—even to one's own patterns—and correct will see its value increase significantly.

Cliff Asnes explains that integrating machine learning into investment processes involves a crucial trade-off. While AI models can identify complex, non-linear patterns that outperform traditional methods, their inner workings are often uninterpretable, forcing a departure from intuitively understood strategies.

Advanced AIs, like those in Starcraft, can dominate human experts in controlled scenarios but collapse when faced with a minor surprise. This reveals a critical vulnerability. Human investors can generate alpha by focusing on situations where unforeseen events or "thick tail" risks are likely, as these are the blind spots for purely algorithmic strategies.

Simple 'If-Then' Investment Rules Risk Obsolescence from AI Automation | RiffOn