Re:JPMorgan to pay nearly $1B for metals market manipulation
by tootie on Tuesday September 29, 2020 @03:43PM
(#24632048)
Writing the algorithm is the intent. Same as hiring a hitman.
Re:JPMorgan to pay nearly $1B for metals market manipulation
by tombert on Tuesday September 29, 2020 @02:07PM
(#24631053)
IANAL, but I would think that it would be your (as the person deploying and maintaining this algorithm) responsibility to make sure this algorithm doesn't do anything illegal or disingenuous, either by putting safeguards into it or by constantly tracking it to make sure it doesn't do something bad.
Re:JPMorgan to pay nearly $1B for metals market manipulation
by willdearden on Tuesday September 29, 2020 @03:25PM
(#24631868)
You are legally responsible as if you had submitted the orders yourself.
Re:JPMorgan to pay nearly $1B for metals market manipulation
by beambot on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @12:38AM
(#24635736)
I understand that... But as stated, the orders themselves are not illegal. It all hinges on intent of "your strategy to dupe other traders", but I fail to see how the algorithm creator would understand a black-box strategy developed by the algorithm. Eg let's say they algo was some form of reinforcement learning; it's not clear to me that you could even represent the policy space in a human-interperable way. All you have is inputs & outputs -- the AI has no "intent" beyond it's objective function -- say expectation maximization or risk minimization.
Re:JPMorgan to pay nearly $1B for metals market manipulation
by summitsummit on Thursday October 01, 2020 @07:36AM
(#24649738)
beam bot, im guessing the law would not be on your side.
So if you build an algorithm that "learns" this behavior, it's OK since human intent is removed?