I see that as a continuation of a long arc of using machines to read things in finance (not just on the buy side, btw.), don't think it will change the competitive dynamics between the more dominant players. (There might be some more concentration in some areas, but the dynamics for that pre-date LLMs or even AI/ML in some cases.)

The question is if their holdings will melt faster than they can develop the capability to use the new AI better than the small fries going after them.

So far this year the main thing slowing down development for us has been the SEC seizing our development boxes for insider trading once a month or so. Which given that each cost $50,000 has been something of a sore point.

Some of the "small fry" might get big, but similarly some of the big players will stay big - even pre-AI there have been sizable shifts in AUM.

> Within the next five years I don't think there will be anyone left standing who isn't worth a trillion dollars or doesn't have all their quants augmented by LLMs.

What an interesting comment. So, your thesis is that a few players that come out ahead will be worth substantially more than the biggest players now and they will all be using LLMs? What's driving the consolidation? High barrier to entry for making a foundation model for finance?

>I'm in finance and we're using LLMs to summarize a ton of soft data on company performance. We're making a killing and beating the market substantially.

so are you saying that you are okay with LLM hallucinations causing your company to make possible huge losses, even if rarely ?

I should mention that I am an LLM newbie, or rather a zerobie. all I have is a very high level sketchy overview of the field. but I am a dev with many years background in many areas, though not AI at all, except for reading a little bit now and then about it.

feel free to blast me, but preferably with data-backed statements.