Didn't random companies add block chain to their names only just a few years ago and get 30+% jumps in stock price immediately?

> Just because the stock goes up doesn't mean anyone was tricked. People invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all kinds of second order effects.

Wouldn’t those second order effects be downstream of the first order effect of people being tricked?

Run trading bot looking for news feeds with specific terms. Buy stocks based on this. Understand your fellow humans are lazy and stupid. If you can’t read past the first word of a news article maybe that person shouldn’t be allowed to trade stocks.

That’s quite different, BlockChain was a buzzword label for existing tech. AGI is a label for something we famously haven’t achieved, and which would be revolutionary if we had.

This seems more like calling your spaceship company, I dunno, “Interplanetary Passengers” or something.

AGI is a buzzword too, it's just differently applied.

In this case it's a word that means the thing we're all developing towards apparently, but that no one actually knows how to get or even how to measure whether or not we've already gotten it , and no one really knows what will happen when it's achieeved, if it hasn't already been.

It's a bit like an even wackier more-corporate version of The Quest for the Holy Grail.

And the honest one true test for "is it a buzzword?" : Did a corporate group brand a flagship with it?

"RISC architecture is going to change everything!"

Or naming one of your launch vehicles “Starship”.

I didn't say it would be a wise decision to pick stocks that way, but this has already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Blockchain_Corp.

Does an iced tea company changing their name to Long Blockchain make any sense? No, not really, it's pretty stupid actually, but it managed to bump the stock by apparently 380%.

The stock market can be pretty dumb sometimes. Let's not forget the weird GME bubble.

You're making claims not found in evidence. Just because the stock goes up doesn't mean anyone was tricked. People invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all kinds of second order effects.

GME was hardly a trick either. If you actually read the subreddits at the time they were all perfectly aware of the nature of the thing. They literally go around calling it degenerate behavior (i.e. risky, frothy, baseless).

Why is the assumption that you are smarter than everyone else? That you can interpret the world but everyone else needs protecting?

Where did I say I was smarter than everyone else? I certainly don’t think that and I didn’t mean to imply it if I did.

I do think I know more than the average person about computers. Probably most people on this forum can say that. People who know about computers are more likely to be able to smell bullshit with a name like AGI. It’s not that I am smarter, I wouldn’t be able to call bullshit with anything involving chemistry or physics.

I think, like Long Blockchain, ARM is abusing that world’s collective computer illiteracy and trying to harvest investor money in the process. Clearly this has worked once, as was the case of Long Blockchain.

> People invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all kinds of second order effects.

Yep! And this is why it is wrong for corporations to put out incorrect or misleading statements, as it creates a sentiment that is not realistic. This can then propagate in the form of the stock price not being realistic.

I just don't believe even a person with a poor understanding of the market or the underlying technology tosses out bets so casually based only on a name, in the sense that they believe 'oh wow this is actually AGI, I should buy it'.

It's different for them to toss out a bet on the basis of 'other people will think this is AGI, I should buy it in anticipation of that' or even 'other people will think other people will think this is AGI, I should buy in anticipation of that'.

People playing the Keynesian beauty contest are not, to me, naive participants in the market getting scammed by a company adding 'AGI' to a product.

The idea that the first-order person exists in any great number is just so insulting to the average person's intelligence that it's hard not to read it in a paternalistic tone.

> I just don't believe even a person with a poor understanding of the market or the underlying technology tosses out bets so casually based only on a name, in the sense that they believe 'oh wow this is actually AGI, I should buy it'.

The CUBA ticker shot up in value after Obama lifted sanctions on Cuba, despite the fact that company doesn't invest in any Cuba companies. People will invest in things just based on a name. https://acrinv.com/silly-true-market-anomaly/

The average person generally doesn't know a lot about anything other than the specific niche that they do for a living. This isn't a dig at their intelligence, or at least I'm not excluding myself. I know a fair bit about computer science, but only a very lay person's understanding of basically everything else.

For example, I know nothing about electric or hydrogen powered cars, so I wasn't able to call bullshit with the Nikola scam a few years ago. I fortunately didn't buy any Nikola stock, but that wasn't because of any insight on my end, just didn't buy it. I am very glad that people who do know about this kind of stuff call it out when companies lie to potential investors.

> People will invest in things just based on a name

Right but it doesn't follow from this that those people were tricked in some way. They can be second- or third-order bettors. Even the most sophisticated quant shop in the world, the literal sharpest players in the market, can bet 'just based on a name' if it fits into some theory about market dynamics or whatever.

> The average person generally doesn't know a lot about anything other than the specific niche that they do for a living.

But so what, it doesn't follow that because they don't know about X they are willing to trivially gamble significant amounts of money on X without even the most basic of research. "I don't know much about this so won't place a bet I'm not willing to lose" is not something that requires any great intelligence.

Yes, that's how fraud works a lot of the time. It removes you from the market but not until after it's removed your money. And there's an endless supply of new people ready to make the same mistake after you've learned your lesson.