How Hudson River Trading Actually Uses AI

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though you can get great stock picks just by going to ChatGPT and asking it to recommend some investments. And yet financial firms of all sorts — including trading firms — say they're increasingly using AI. But are the tools actually being deployed? And how do these tools differ from traditional machine learning or algorithmic approaches to trading, the likes of which have been used by quant firms for decades now. On this episode of the podcast, we speak with Iain Dunning, the head of AI research at Hudson River Trading, a major US market maker. We discuss the firm's attempts to use AI not just for more efficient trading, but also to make short-term predictions about price, which further gives its traders an edge. Dunning walks us through his work, his views on the main constraints facing the space (labor, power, chips, etc.) and how his work is both different and similar to what's happening at the major cutting edge research labs like ChatGPT. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Joe Weisenthal?

  There are some market stories where you want every detail. Tracy and I have made quite a few podcasts on that basis, but sometimes you've only got 10 minutes and need to know what's moving markets and why. That's the Barclays Brief Podcast. Every week, experts from Barclays Markets and research get you up to speed on what matters and what to watch next, about the time it takes to grab a coffee. So, search Barclays Brief wherever you get your podcasts.

• 0:26Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk, and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs, and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw, innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting and hiring practices, but according to recruiters, advisors,

• 1:11Speaker 01

  and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company, and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates, quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at chatgpt.com.

• 1:48Speaker 01

  Being a small business owner isn't just a career, it's a calling. Chase for Business knows how much heart and effort go into building something of your own. Manage all your business finances, from banking to payments to credit cards, all in one place with Chase's digital tools. Plus, access online resources designed

• 2:05Speaker 02

  To help your business thrive. Learn more at chase.com/business. Chase for business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. J P Morgan Chase Bank, N A, member F D I C. Copyright 2026, J P Morgan Chase and Company. If you listen to financial news, you know a lot of time is spent thinking about what's next. The next opportunity, the next investment, the next move. But sometimes what matters most is being ready for what you never saw coming. For more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has worked with independent agents to help protect businesses, homes, valuables, and more. Because planning for the future isn't only about knowing what's next.

• 2:50Speaker 02

  It's about making sure you're ready for what you can't predict. Let Cincinnati Insurance make your bad day better. Find an independent agent at C I N F I N dot com.

• 3:04Speaker 02

  Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news.

• 3:19Joe Weisenthal?

  Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal.

• 3:23Tracy Alloway?

  And I'm Tracy Alloway.

• 3:25Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, I've always had this idea for the podcast or a thing that I've wanted to do.

• 3:29Tracy Alloway?

  Okay.

• 3:30Joe Weisenthal?

  Conceptually with podcasts is schedule every guest for two interviews. So you have the opening interview and you ask a bunch of questions. And then it's, oh, God, I really wish I had followed up on that. I have more. I was just starting to sort of get my head around this thing. Now I could have asked the good questions. And then like have the person come back next week. Also, the the audience complains, I wish you had asked that. And then fill in all those gaps that had been inspired by the previous conversation.

• 3:55Tracy Alloway?

  I don't think it's a bad idea. I think it would double the number of episodes that we put out. But sure, there are topics that come up, usually things that were just kind of new to, and we're trying to learn about specifically technical things. And one of those has to be A I, right?

• 4:11Joe Weisenthal?

  AI and also, you know, I really had a great time. I guess last month we were in Chicago.

• 4:16Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah.

• 4:17Joe Weisenthal?

  We talked to a bunch of different, it was like a trading related trip. We interviewed Don Wilson. We interviewed the head of the CME. We had some other chats. They're all about the world of trading. When it comes to trading, it's like, you know, we talked to long-term investors, portfolio managers, endowments. We talked to some people in the hedge fund space who like maybe have a holding period of several weeks or whatever. I actually really want to learn more about the trading, like these people who have like a holding time of one second or something like that. Cause that's where a lot of the tech and a lot of the actual like action is and how that world makes money and how they actually deploy technology is very interesting, but still something I don't have my hand on.

• 4:53Tracy Alloway?

  Well, the practical application, right? And also the culture of AI on Wall Street. I find that really interesting because I remember, I guess it was like more than a decade ago, but remember Lloyd Blankfein saying that Goldman Sachs is a technology company?

• 5:05Joe Weisenthal?

  Oh, yeah, yeah. JP Morgan. Yeah.

• 5:06Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah. And all these bank CEOs saying, we're going to install ping pong tables to get all the coders. And now I see ads at trading firms and it's like, we have a data center full of B200s or we have a data center full of G300s. Come work for us.

• 5:20Joe Weisenthal?

  The only thing besides all their tech that I know is like, every time you read a profile of any trading company, they're like, and they love to play backgammon there. They love to play, like all the articles, the chess boards are out and they could be seen playing chess over lunch, et cetera. I get it. Okay. They like ads. They like games. They like whatever. Let's move the ball forward.

• 5:39Tracy Alloway?

  Well, there's also the underlying theme of is this all hype, right? Because you do get the sense sometimes that companies are putting out press releases where they just mention AI to tick a box, to be seen to be doing something and hope that their stock actually goes up. And because so much of this is proprietary and people kind of have an excuse not to go into detail about it, sometimes you do get the feeling that people are just talking about it and not actually using it.

• 6:08Joe Weisenthal?

  Cynics, and I'm not saying this myself.

• 6:11Tracy Alloway?

  I know you're not a cynic, Joe.

• 6:13Joe Weisenthal?

  Speaking of trading and technology, cynics.

• 6:17Joe Weisenthal?

  Would say that CME's deal with Google to build a cloud, to put trading on the cloud was hyped. That was a press release. People have said that. People have made that charge and they don't understand why. You don't have to comment. You don't have to say anything further on that.

• 6:29Tracy Alloway?

  I do have a comment, but I'll hold it for our guest.

• 6:31Joe Weisenthal?

  I'm just saying, there is this world where people do press releases and cynics go, I don't really understand the point. Anyway, there's a very long wind up. Let's learn more about the world of trading. Let's learn more about AI and tech specifically. What does it even mean to apply AI within the realm of trading? We are going to be speaking with Ian Dunning. He is the head of AI at Hudson River Trading. He was previously at DeepMind. So his trading and AI bona fides are about as good as it gets.

• 6:57Tracy Alloway?

  We've established them.

• 6:58Joe Weisenthal?

  We've established that. Really the perfect guest to answer all our questions. So Ian, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

• 7:04Speaker 04

  Yeah, I'm really happy to be here. I agree with you. The mystique factor is kind of overblown. Even if it's understandable why people embrace it sometimes.

• 7:12Joe Weisenthal?

  We're going to blow past the mystique. Let's start with some like really just like rudimentary questions. And just the first one is like, Hudson River Trading as a company, how does it make money?

• 7:22Speaker 04

  Yeah. So we are a sort of quantitative, automated proprietary trading firm, which is a lot of words. But I guess the way I see it is we are a service provider to markets.

• 7:34Joe Weisenthal?

  Okay.

• 7:35Speaker 04

  The most clear example is market making. There is a sort of utility to the world of being ready to buy or sell any product, anytime, anywhere. And for us, that means stocks, futures, options, crypto, bonds. And if you could, say, build a magical machine to quote a price to buy or sell any instrument, and you would want to be like the best possible price, like the tightest price, people would trade with you.

• 7:58Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 7:59Speaker 04

  They would be happy because there's a counterparty for their trade and they get a kind of good price, like a low spread. And we're happy because we essentially pick up a penny in front of a steamroller. Like we are making sort of money from that spread and we can pick up the pennies in front of a steamroller if we have a really magical device, which tells us what everything should be worth.

• 8:17Joe Weisenthal?

  When the steamroller is coming.

• 8:18Speaker 04

  Yeah, it tells us when the steamroller is coming. And so I think that's kind of the very, very sophisticated sort of middleman in some sense. And the same way that Amazon is. Amazon doesn't make stuff, but is a very valuable, profitable company. It provides a service people can value of. Same thing, we're moving. Stocks bonds through time and space between different counterparties and yeah.

• 8:36Tracy Alloway?

  We will ask you about the steamroller in a few minutes.

• 8:39Speaker 04

  Sure.

• 8:39Tracy Alloway?

  But before we do that, how does AI or the way you're using AI actually differ from the algorithmic or quant trading of old? Because I guess that one of the questions is, is this you know, a sort of evolutionary change, you know, maybe a marginal improvement on what already exists? Or is this something seismic and a step change, the big shift in the way trading actually works?

• 9:03Speaker 04

  Yeah, I mean, I don't want to over overstate ourselves in some sense because in the space, as you mentioned before, it's very like opaque, what sort of different firms of this class are doing. I can certainly speak to our own experience, which is we've been doing this type of trading for 20 plus years. And much like everyone who was doing this, the way it kind of worked was you handcraft features that sort of based on human intuition. Oh, I don't know, the order book looks imbalanced. There's more people wanting to buy than sell. The price is going to go up soon or something like that. And maybe you you get a bunch of very smart people and they think very hard and like it's almost like making a very fancy watch, kind of artisanally craft all these pieces. And then maybe you use relatively simple mathematical techniques like linear regression to combine those predictors. And

• 9:46Speaker 04

  I've been going to conferences and things and recruiting for a long time. And even if today you just go on the internet, you'll people say things like, oh, that's all you can do in finance. For some reason, they'll say this, they'll say something like, oh, it's too noisy or markets are too non-stationary or things like this. And so that's all you can do. And I guess that belief isn't really backed up by anything, in my my opinion and like lived experience, I guess. And so we sort of viewed it more for a long time as well, there's everything that's happening in the world. And ideally, you would put this into kind of like a machine that does not have any human biases. I don't know how to trade stocks myself. Like I I buy broad market ETFs. What do I know? And so we but if you could put all the data into a box and it kind of could churn all of that data,

• 10:30Speaker 04

  it would find things that you would never be able to do with this handcrafted sort of thing. And we started doing that very early relatively as of 2014, 2013 period. And over time, over the last decade or so, much like in other contexts that are not finance, there has been sort of a hockey stick and you can measure by the size of the models, the compute deployed. And over time, that way of modeling the markets initially was not like a hybrid with the traditional way, but it actually kind of just like overtook it entirely. And so now our trading is entirely driven by this magical machine that consumes all the data. I kind of keep saying this magical machine that consumes all the data for a reason, which is that this is how chat GPT is trained.

• 11:14Speaker 04

  It consumes all the data, all the internet. It's kind of scraped and collected into one place. When you train a model that kind of takes it all and something emergent comes from it. And that's why I'm kind of a bit leading, but that's why I'm talking about in this sense. And I think that is materially different from the like, I'm using my intuition of the markets to kind of construct a predictive model.

• 11:32Tracy Alloway?

  So just to be clear, how much of the usefulness of AI here is about execution and the fact that you can crunch a lot of data really quickly with hundreds or thousands of GPUs versus spotting sophisticated patterns or discrepancies that you can exploit?

• 11:49Speaker 04

  I think it's both. I think one of the things that people sort of missed with the whole like do a linear regression type thing is when you really think about how much data there is in financial markets generated. And when I say data, I think it's important to think of it as every event that happens in markets, not the sort of time series of prices, but like the actual low level substrate. People are quoting, trading, retracting quotes. That like low level stuff is internet scale dataset sizes. And one of the sort of bitter lesson-y type things of AI was like, you shouldn't think too hard about how to feature engineer this and pre-process it. You should kind of throttle in to something, a form of computation that can kind of make use of internet scale data. In the 2010s, it was like computer vision.

• 12:32Speaker 04

  People used to make detectors for edges of images and things and they would combine them. And same thing, it's like, that was a good approach, but you know, it's completely dominated by the idea of getting a very large number of GPUs and a kind of a pretty generic neural network form empowering through it. As for like the how is it finding things that other methods could not, it's very hard to say. Our models are not very interpretable. And I think that's fine because as Joe mentioned, our sort of trading style and holding times, a bit of thought of it is like minutes, hours, maybe like a low single digit days for the most part. And I guess in my mind, it's unreasonable to expect them to be interpretable.

• 13:11Speaker 04

  Because I don't know, if I looked at the order book data for Tesla or something, am I really going to be able to tell you better than random what the price of Tesla will be in a minute's time? And so I kind of think it like that if you have something that's clearly superhuman already.

• 13:24Joe Weisenthal?

  Huh.

• 13:25Speaker 04

  What level of interpretability could you expect? Like it's very different, right to normal AI, right?

• 13:30Joe Weisenthal?

  This is gets into some areas that I'm very interested in, but just to like establish what we're talking about.

• 13:36Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 13:36Joe Weisenthal?

  You're trading a stock like a Tesla, Nvidia, et cetera, with your magic machine.

• 13:42Speaker 04

  Magic machine.

• 13:42Joe Weisenthal?

  Now, we had another episode where we talked, well, that was the money box. As a magic box.

• 13:46Speaker 04

  That's a different.

• 13:47Joe Weisenthal?

  That's a different one with this AI machine.

• 13:49Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 13:49Joe Weisenthal?

  It is sort of arguably grown, right? It's sort of grown in a lab more than it is programmed.

• 13:54Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 13:55Joe Weisenthal?

  Much like a chatbot.

• 13:56Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 13:56Joe Weisenthal?

  I know it's a very different technology. Like, what is the price of Nvidia going to be tomorrow?

• 14:02Speaker 04

  Yep.

• 14:02Joe Weisenthal?

  Or what is the price of Nvidia going to be this afternoon? What you're saying is with your technology, you have a better, a better chance of getting that right. That you actually might be able to make an informed prediction about the future in a way that you couldn't have done, say, 10 years ago.

• 14:18Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 14:19Joe Weisenthal?

  And that people who talked about this, they would come up with reasons, oh, the stock market, it's not like chess or Go, and therefore you can't really do predictions the same way. But what you're saying is that with these models, which are different than LLMs, there is some, at least on a short time scale predictive capacity.

• 14:34Speaker 04

  Yes, I think that I find this still to mistake a little bit hard to believe. I think you get this kind of efficient market hypothesis stuff jumped into your head. It seems like someone's saying they can predict like the price of a stock in an hour. Your instinctual reaction is incredulity, like this sounds like you're kind of bluffing or making it up. But no, these models can predict this. And I think it's the way to kind of reconcile the like, really, man, like kind of instinct is that the predictions are very bad in some sense. We don't normally talk about like accuracy, but I think the way to think about it is like the accuracy is like 50.1% type thing. Like they're only a little bit better than random.

• 15:11Tracy Alloway?

  But I suppose an extra 1% like blows up your profits if you're doing it at scale.

• 15:15Speaker 04

  Doing it at scale, doing it enough times. And over time, you kind of realize the biased coin flip. And as for why it might be possible to do this without kind of invoking magic. It's like markets are very beautiful interaction of like many different potties, all the different kind of utilities, risk preferences and things. And the only way you really see what people are doing is by like the actions they take in markets and you kind of. It's sucking up all that like signal, micro signal and extrapolating.

• 15:42Joe Weisenthal?

  The cynicism or the skepticism about the possibility of machines that could predict the price of stocks is a little strange, right? Because machines ingest data, then whatever, maybe they see a pattern more likely than not. This constellation of data means tomorrow will be green. Humans do this all the time. What else do we have besides data, right? You have an analyst and they put out a Tesla or whatever, Nvidia is going to go to $500 a share.

• 16:06Tracy Alloway?

  How dare you insinuate I'm not smarter than a computer, Joe.

• 16:09Joe Weisenthal?

  We were like, all humans have this data and much less data. And yet, humans are making predictions all the time. There's a whole industry of it. So the idea that therefore was for some reason, a computer couldn't do this with much more data analysts ever have. I understand why the cynicism comes off as a little strange.

• 16:29Tracy Alloway?

  I think some of the doubt stems from this idea that a lot of these models tend to be backward looking, right? And some of them occasionally are pretty bad at spotting or reacting to big regime breaks. And I guess the thinking, again, sometimes is that maybe humans are more flexible, maybe more adaptive in their thinking. And they can kind of spot these big cultural shifts. How do you actually, I guess, prepare for those big pattern changes?

• 16:56Speaker 04

  Yeah, I was at HIT for COVID and I thought that was kind of like the most.

• 17:01Tracy Alloway?

  That was a big pattern, right?

• 17:02Speaker 04

  That was a big pattern break and things went totally fine. Actually, it was more of an engineering crisis in some ways. Stock market volumes exploded and every system was just like screaming, trying to keep up with the volume of activity. But in terms of the predictions, they stayed quite good. And I had like reconcilous in my head as well. I guess it is a matter of like horizon and like how far in the future are we talking? Intraday, I think a lot of the price movement is driven by just observing like the flows. It's hard for us as humans to observe, but it's like the relative patterns of buyers and sellers in the markets. And it's like, yes, during COVID, volatility was massive and prices were moving up and down a lot. But they were going up and down during, say, March 2020.

• 17:44Speaker 04

  And so these models, it was sort of out of domain for a human, but I don't think out of domain in some sense for the models. But I guess I also don't know how you would apply this thinking if you were trying to make sort of months ahead predictions. I often get like people being like, oh, everyone knows hedge funds, which we're not a hedge fund. It's like they're like flipping coins and it's some survivor bias thing. And, you know, I genuinely don't know about months out prediction stuff. That is not a data rich environment.

• 18:11Joe Weisenthal?

  Just by definition, there have been more days than months, right? So therefore prediction on a day basis, you're offered a lot more data.

• 18:18Speaker 04

  That that that rule of thumb is basically very useful. It is and it extends all the way down to seconds.

• 18:24Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 18:24Speaker 04

  And we see that empirically all the time. And so, yeah, I guess all the things I'm saying do have this caveat, but it does rely on sort of being a certain level of signal to noise. I definitely cannot make reasonable claims about the price of things in like a month using the same kind of like AI hammer. I guess also to be specific, I'm talking a lot about using market data to make these predictions. And that's because on the sort of intraday time scale, that is the most important thing. It's all about flows and things being back and forth. If you're thinking about things in a month's time scale, I think that's fundamentals. And can AI be used for that? I don't know, to be honest, and it's definitely outside my wheelhouse. And I guess people have various opinions about that. And maybe some people very much would like to claim that they can.

• 19:09Speaker 04

  And, you know, others maybe don't, but it's definitely outside of my area of expertise and I don't know.

• 19:14Tracy Alloway?

  Wait, talk to us about the data that you're using or talk more, because this is another area where people tend to talk in PR speak. Sometimes we have access to all this data, unusual data, alternative data. And that's going to enable us to use AI better. What are you actually looking at and what have you found, I guess, most useful?

• 19:33Speaker 04

  Well, I think the thing that I Found most counterintuitive when I started was that when you're thinking about predicting the prices of anything a minute, an hour out, by far the most useful thing is just market data. This is the market data feeds you can buy from the exchanges for a pretty reasonable price. People often think this is some sort of like competitive moat. The data feeds for these exchanges are not particularly high. And in crypto, you know, where it's like a wild west, but everyone can collect these feeds. And so that is the most useful raw ingredient. That is the most true expression of everyone's intents, right? They're going to the market, they're quoting, they're buying, selling. That is the primary ingredient. People get kind of caught up on the whole like, I don't know, do you have a Twitter feed type of thing? And Bloomberg sells a Twitter feed through its data products and Buy that. Buy that.

• 20:16Speaker 04

  It's every now and then, obviously something happens, news happens during market hours that moves the price, dissecates the price. But if you really coldly rationalize that, that is a relatively infrequent thing compared to the overall massive markets. So for thinking intraday, think these market data feeds, it's literally like a little events. Someone quoted this price and this size, it's all anonymous. Market data feeds are anonymous. And so that is the raw stuff and it is vast. There are just millions and millions of events per day, per stock, per future. When you get to the day, days, timescale, that's where the alternative data, quote unquote, kind of really comes in. As in alternative to market data, the SEC filings, the news feeds, balance sheets, brokers, reports, things like this. That's where that comes in.

• 21:00Speaker 04

  And there's a vast sea of data offerings that people try and sell. That I think in that kind of situation, it's a very low shop environment you start getting into. And it's, it can be hard to attribute the extra shop in each of these things. But in some sense, it's also very democratized. There are maybe people collecting very secret data sets, but my inbox, and I'm not even the person in charge of buying these alternative data sets, is often full of people trying to sell me the latest alternative data set. And I think a lot of them don't necessarily have much predictive value, but clearly as a market burn.

• 21:32Tracy Alloway?

  What's the craziest one you've seen? Can you remember?

• 21:35Speaker 04

  I mean, people have definitely reacted very strongly to the Wall Street Bets era. Oh, yeah. Tried to kind of create a bunch of Reddit-y extracted thing and go beyond just like raw captures of Reddit and trying to distill it into something. You know, it's just even just thinking about it, the meme stock thing is kind of what's talked about more after it happens than it happens before. And so like, I don't know.

• 22:11Tracy Alloway?

  There are some market stories where you want every detail. Joe and I have made quite a few podcasts on that basis. But sometimes you've only got 10 minutes and just want to know what's moving markets fast. That's the Barclays Brief Podcast. Every week, experts from Barclays Markets and Research get you up to speed on what's happening and what to watch next. Concise, focused, and brief. Search Barclays Brief wherever you get your podcasts.

• 22:38Speaker 05

  Running a business means keeping pace with the latest tech. You've put a lot into building your enterprise software stack and scrapping it to integrate AI is out of the question. That's why IBM technology works with all the apps, data, and models you need. It's another way IBM helps you build on the technology you rely on. Let's create smarter business. IBM. Visit ibm.com to learn more.

• 23:07Joe Weisenthal?

  This is sort of a sideways question. You mentioned interpretability, and this gave me something I've been wondering about AI for a while, not even in the finance realm specifically. You're a DeepMind, which of course produced a great Go player, better than the greatest grandmaster in the world. I play chess. We know that chess engines are much better than any human. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no good AI chess tutor. So in other words, the chess crushes you, but like I've never been able to get a thing where it's, okay, you did this move, but you know what? You're closing this rook file and down the line because like it doesn't do that. The chess.com human talk is very rudimentary, et cetera.

• 23:51Joe Weisenthal?

  Can you talk a little bit about why there are these problems where some version of AI or machine learning or whatever can do fantastically well, but then the actual explanation of what it's doing, which I think is kind of what interpretability is, can't articulate in a plain English why it's able to do what it does?

• 24:12Speaker 04

  I think it's just because these neural networks are, in some sense, it's just like a big old blob of numbers and

• 24:20Speaker 04

  What we're aiming to do when we're training these models is to almost like free ourselves from almost all structure. And they might learn things in a way that is nothing at all like how we learn things. And so my, my, my best guess for like why it's hard is because they might be reasoning in some sense internally. And people use these words like reasoning. It kind of makes me wince. I've seen imagination and things used about neural networks. I'm like, ah, I don't know. It's like kind of anthropomorphization of them is kind of dangerous because they are essentially processing things internally in this way that I think is inherently not like how we do. And that is my best sort of guess. There are some interesting counter examples. One of my favorite sort of things in Pascal's was Golden Gate Claude, which was anthropic

• 25:03Speaker 04

  made the model basically get very interested in the Golden Gate Bridge. And every question they asked would come back to the Golden Gate Bridge. And so they're not completely impenetrable.

• 25:12Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 25:12Speaker 04

  But it's clear that like it gets hard beyond a point to kind of map this back to how anyway like we think. And it's very tempting to and exciting to and especially for like AI safety applications, which aren't really relevant to me so much, but I think it's very tempting to try.

• 25:25Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah. No, it strikes me as that if you could solve that many jobs, you could actually make a lot of productivity gains, but I do think that's an important hurdle. When you're training your models, so your models are different than large language models, et cetera, but what they have in common is this incredible amount of data, incredible amount of compute demand. How applicable if someone had worked on L L Ms, would your training process be to them? How interpret, how could they move from that environment to yours? Are there enough similarities in the basic notions and compute and requirements to train a model such as yours versus what people are doing at the major labs?

• 26:02Speaker 04

  I would say now in 2025, absolutely.

• 26:05Joe Weisenthal?

  Okay.

• 26:06Speaker 04

  But I would not have said that in 2020. And this is something that kind of just caught me by surprise, having done this for a while now, is that our problems are kind of defined by long sequential strings of information in some sense and extrapolating from that. If I think back to the past of AI, it was like, is this a, is this like a hot dog or not? It's kind of like the like image classifier, you know, test. Then there was some stuff with audio and things that was a little bit more familiar, robotics, eh. But when we got to the sort of L L M era, it got very interesting because. Suddenly, the problems are very similar in that you have, you want to think back over like long histories, long contexts. Okay, that sounds good. You've got a lot of data and you want

• 26:48Speaker 04

  to churn through it as efficient way as possible. You also have to serve this model. Someone has to run in like a relatively reasonable speed, especially for the LLM places. There are a million people typing into chatgpt.com and they want to hear a response in a relatively prompt manner. Of course, for us also, the models have to make their predictions in a prompt manner otherwise the predictions aren't useful. So all these things mean that our sort of way of thinking about it has become very similar to the frontier LLM things. It's just a very different modality. We're operating on, I guess, primarily text and we're operating on this fileless interpretable but still sequential stream of tokens, except our tokens are market events. And so it's a lot of fun because, you know, in terms of like the research that is still published, you can kind of look at it for inspiration and draw

• 27:33Speaker 04

  comparisons. But it's also, it's very much its own problem, which is kind of keeps me interested every day because it's like its own unique thing. But it's different.

• 27:42Tracy Alloway?

  I want to go back to the point you made about data and I guess democratizing finance in many ways. And maybe this is a weird question, but I'm thinking back to the 2010s and we used to talk about the big investment banks as flow monsters. They see all these orders, they get all these orders, they see all the flow, and that allows them to optimize on funding costs and other expenses. Is the idea that data and AI can kind of replicate that advantage so that everyone, or not everyone, but Hudson at least, becomes its own little flow monster?

• 28:18Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think there's still some trends in markets that worry me a little bit in terms of, I guess, our platonic ideal market structure is probably like everyone trades on exchange in a centralized place. But that is not really how things seem to be going. And there's a huge amount of like off exchange.

• 28:38Speaker 04

  Dark, quasi-dark volume. And I think there is still a lot of quants of the trading world where like being in the room is kind of like this big advantage. And this is very much anti-AI play in some sense. It's data is hidden, the data, the flow data is hidden. And it's not something that you can feed into machines. There's very sparse amounts of it. And so that's kind of a, an interesting trend. A lot of this data gets reported in a centralized place later, but it's not prompt enough to be useful. And so to say that AI thrives on data, this is in some sense like an issue for the long run. You need to kind of be in the rooms where the sort of trading is happening.

• 29:17Joe Weisenthal?

  I'm glad you brought that up because that's specifically what I'm curious about from the sort of physical infrastructure side. Like if I have a query at a chat GPT, I don't care if the model is like trained in like Ebeling, Texas, or wherever it gets back to me and whatever. But I know that for high frequency trading, at least on the execution side, there are certain parts that you want to be literally co-located and you want to have the shortest possible wire and however short it is, ideally you would like it to be shorter. Can you talk about the differences and similarities between essentially your physical hardware stack versus what would be required at a large language model frontier lab?

• 30:01Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think at a bulk level, there's actually some pretty similar things. So I can think about it as like latency and throughput, latency being the time to react and then throughput kind of like how much thinking you can do in a certain period of time. And so you're right that like this space demands like low latency. Early in the 2010s, there was this sort of Flash Boys book and perception where it was like really kind of about arbitraging latency. I'm happy to report that in some sense, all the latency has been arbitrage for the most part.

• 30:29Joe Weisenthal?

  There's no more edge in shortening the wire.

• 30:31Speaker 04

  This is probably like a little bit, but it's relatively small. And like, I think if you look at the big quant trading firms, the need to like really make the wires as short as they possibly can is done or no longer relevant, which is great because I find that stuff pretty boring personally. I think about it more as like for a given kind of like speed of response, you should be the smartest person. So there's like this curve. If you're going to take a second to come up with your trading decision, it'd be a really, really good decision. And then it doesn't kind of matter that it took a second. If you're going to take a microsecond, well, A, you probably can't do too much in a microsecond, but you know, it better still be the best response in a microsecond. And so.

• 31:11Joe Weisenthal?

  You could be a little worse.

• 31:12Speaker 04

  You could be a little worse.

• 31:12Joe Weisenthal?

  And then the second.

• 31:13Speaker 04

  Yeah, for sure. And so essentially for our training, we use the cloud. We have our own training data centers that we've built ourselves. That is basically the same, although much, much smaller scale. The scale of Googles and things, I don't know, it blows my mind, the spending on, on, on stuff like this. We are, I think, big, if you're not comparing us to Google or Meta, but not, that's not like bajillions of dollars. So training is, is kind of the same inference. You, we need to put the devices close to the exchanges. And we need to think very hard about the power usage and the latency. But we have hardware teams, we make our own FPGAs, we make our own chips, and we use off the shelf GPUs. And what we try and do is we try and make sure that for any given sort of speed of response,

• 31:56Speaker 04

  we're making the smartest possible decision we can. So you can kind of.

• 31:59Joe Weisenthal?

  Field program mobile gate array.

• 32:00Speaker 04

  Oh, there you go. Sorry.

• 32:01Joe Weisenthal?

  An FPGA.

• 32:02Speaker 04

  Yeah, yeah. Basically, all these different devices have different latencies and throughputs. GPUs have very high throughput. They are, that's what they're useful for, right? And so, but the problem with markets is they're kind of like narrow. The amount of traffic flowing into these like LMs from everyone typing into their robots is just massive. And they do all sorts of clever things to kind of batch up requests and process some things. We don't really have that luxury really. Like the markets are going to happen at the speed they happen. We can't kind of like duck out for a while and catch up. We kind of need to stay in the game. So we have all these sort of interesting design challenges around how do we use GPUs, which are relatively high latency. They take a while to give back a result, but they can process the whole stock market on one GPU type of thing versus the fast response.

• 32:43Speaker 04

  And so we have whole teams dedicated to thinking about, okay, I've got this like intelligent blob. How do I get ounces out of it in different ways, at different speeds? And that I think is where a lot of the smarts are going in this world these days. Rather than the like, how do I make sure my microwave towers are like slightly better aligned somewhere in like rural Pennsylvania, like, which is a cool challenge in its own right, but it's done, I think. I think people have found the straightest line from New Jersey to Chicago.

• 33:27Speaker 05

  Running a business means keeping pace with the latest tech. You've put a lot into building your enterprise software stack and scrapping it to integrate AI is out of the question. That's why IBM Technology works with all the apps, data and models you need. It's another way IBM helps you build on the technology you rely on. Let's create smarter business. IBM. Visit ibm.com to learn more.

• 33:56Speaker 06

  The world of business is constantly evolving. Every day, new challenges, new opportunities, new ways of working. Comcast Business keeps you totally in step with secure AI-backed networking built to power the way modern business gets things done today in more than 100 countries around the world. That's some serious muscle. And get this, Comcast Business powers over 90% of the Fortune 500 and millions of small businesses. Behind it all, network engineers, cybersecurity specialists, support teams, thousands of experts answering your call at 2 a.m. like it's 2 p.m. Always on, always ready. That's

• 34:37Speaker 06

  a lot of coffee. One partner powering how business gets done for companies of every size, all around the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business like Comcast Business.

• 34:49Tracy Alloway?

  Joe brought up some of the cynicism around CME's cloud deal with Google. And this came up, speaking of a specific cynic who went on the record in one of our episodes, Don Wilson basically made the argument that matching on a cloud doesn't necessarily make sense because you might put in two orders and you're not really sure which order gets filled first. I guess you're kind of back in that black box environment, or maybe it's a latency issue. I don't know. Is that a problem that you're seeing?

• 35:16Speaker 04

  It's something that I worry about. Our general philosophy is markets should be very transparent and as fair as possible. So like, equalizing access is a good thing in terms of participants shouldn't be able to basically pull weird tricks to be faster. On the other hand, I think you want reliability. So like, this concept of orders arriving at different times and being filled in different orders just doesn't seem like a very sensible way to run a market. It's something that requires a lot of effort to engineer around, and it's just a good market design to have. There's a very widespread, though, in existing exchanges across the world. We've traded in a vast number of countries. And some of the exchanges have such amazing hardware that if two orders are sent within a nanosecond of each other, this exchange will never process them in the wrong order.

• 36:00Speaker 04

  Even if it's 100 different network ports and they're all connected, they have this amazing timestamping stuff. On the other hand, you might have a crypto exchange where it kind of feels like a kid learnt JavaScript and set up a website, and you're kind of like, you send an order and you may or may not be confirmed that they even received it, and then you kind of have to refresh your account balance page like five minutes later to see if there's money in it or not. And we kind of will take, we'll deal with it as it is, but certainly we have a preference for kind of equalized access, but sort of predictable outcomes. And I think that kind of leads to people spending effort. I think it's not necessarily a very great thing for society for people to be stressing very hard about YLAM.

• 36:40Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, no, probably. I'm glad, I'm glad that you report that we've moved on a little bit since then. Where are your constraints? You know, when you talk to LLM people, there's debates about, right? Is it electricity? Is that the big constraint? Is it there just aren't enough GPUs? Is it talent? Is it whatever? When you think about... About where you are now versus the optimal version of where or is it, I mean, data is the other big one because there's all this concern that LLMs are going to run out of training data, etc. Where is the big constraint for you that you feel like you're solving for right now?

• 37:12Speaker 04

  I think in terms of like really long-term strategic planning, electricity is like quite clearly a very binding consideration. When we think about spitting up new like GPU-based training data centers, it really feels like is there electricity? Like finding a piece of land to put a building in, there's a lot of land.

• 37:30Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 37:31Speaker 04

  The electricity negotiation.

• 37:33Joe Weisenthal?

  And that's an issue at HRT that we're thinking about a lot.

• 37:36Speaker 04

  Even for us, you know, because we have a sort of hybrid mix of using cloud providers and building our own data centers. And yeah, the negotiations and thinking about power constraints. We have an existing data center in a very cold place and we want to make it bigger. And the data center people are fantastic to work with, but they're saying like, well, we need to go talk to like the power grid and negotiate this next tranche and so on. And it's just, it often feels like that is the bottleneck. And on the terms of a GPU availability, it definitely was a crunch at some point in the past, but I don't feel like that is.

• 38:08Tracy Alloway?

  It's better now.

• 38:09Joe Weisenthal?

  Can you say a little bit more, the entire stock market is writing on it? Say a little bit more about how you perceive the GPU market right now.

• 38:14Speaker 04

  I think, I think if we ask for GPUs, we will get them delivered in a prompt manner, not necessarily like next day, but I don't feel like that is the thing that we have a long pole and spinning up more.

• 38:25Joe Weisenthal?

  When was the, when was the worst of the crunch?

• 38:28Speaker 04

  I guess 2023, late 2023 felt pretty bad. I was, I guess that was like the Nvidia hopper generation. And I saw this number in Bloomberg yesterday that I think there was a Nvidia conference yesterday and it said something like, it was like 1 million hopper class GPUs have been made, but already like 4 million blackwell class GPUs have been made. So I think there's been a ramp up of supply, but I don't think they're also sitting on unsold inventory either. I think it is being consumed. But yeah, in terms of like, what is the hot thing? I think electricity and I'm, it's insane. I, as a very millennial person, I guess climate change was a big thing growing up in college, but a lot of discussion about climate change and to see people spinning

• 39:08Speaker 04

  up data centers very fast by basically buying as many gas turbines as they can and putting them outside. I'm like. Whoa, like, what are we doing? It's wild, but that's like the only way to get electricity promptly. You just have to throw gas turbines outside the building and turn them on. It's pretty radical stuff. And I don't know how all the numbers that people are talking about for future data center expansion kind of math out, because you just back of the envelope, the power usage and things. And I know that the Sam Altman's in the world have thought about this, have talked about this. Oh, we need to be generating this much new power generation per unit time. But there are such daunting numbers, I just don't know how that is all going to work out. But yeah, even for us, in the grand scheme of things, like a much smaller player in terms of

• 39:52Speaker 04

  power consumption, we think in terms of like tens of megawatts and not gigawatts, which is more than most towns and cities and things, but still. And but we find it like a challenge to find electricity at a reasonable price.

• 40:05Tracy Alloway?

  Wait, on this note, can you talk to us a little bit more about where competitive advantage actually comes from in this space? Because if the GPU crunch is somewhat solved and if latency isn't as big an issue as it used to be, where are people actually getting their edge from?

• 40:20Speaker 04

  Right, I mean, people talent is one of your other things you asked, is that a constraint? Yeah, it is, it is a very competitive people market. We're essentially asking for people to know a lot of things, be both good researchers and good engineers, because, I don't know, in this AI era of a distinction is pretty blurry. It's not something you can just whiteboard and then the coding is a little bit afterwards. Any kind of research idea you have is intimately connected to how you implement it. So that's already like a tough ask. So people are constrained, people that we like, I want to find, and we pay well for those people as a result, and it is competitive. But I think the more subtle edge is almost like putting it all together.

• 41:02Speaker 04

  Do you have people who can, like an engineering team that can collect all the data, record it, make it available to the GPU training data center? This is like many, I guess it's petabyte scale data sets. And just storing that much data, streaming it from wherever it's stored, wherever in the world the training data center is reliably, these training runs are very expensive. And then, once you've got that model serving it, so it kind of sounds do everything. And maybe that's kind of like a lame answer, but it really is. It's, I think you need to be just optimizing the whole stack. And so like my team is like the AI team. And so that what that really means in practice is we're focused on training the models, which is an important but not sufficient.

• 41:46Speaker 04

  Part of a whole stack because we would be kind of dead in the water without the teams at HRT who are thinking about how to like actually kind of get the data and things to these systems and then the decisions out to the markets and keep up when things get busy, all these things. So when I think about our competitors, I think there is a benefit to scale. I can't imagine how you would start a new company like HRT in the year 2025 because of the huge initial lift to kind of build enough engineering scale to achieve this sort of thing. And so I think our sort of peer companies also have invested very heavily in engineering and will continue to do so. And there was an article in the FT like a little, like a week or two ago about how firms like HRT are kind of extending themselves

• 42:30Speaker 04

  more into slower trading. And there are firms that are kind of, you know, those slower firms are trying to kind of go faster.

• 42:36Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, I was just gonna ask about, just like on the prediction standpoint, okay, maybe you could predict with some reasonable confidence what's gonna happen in the next hour, or sometimes if you're lucky, maybe a day, like maybe a month is just ridiculous. But do you, in your work, is that horizon, has it broadened?

• 42:54Speaker 04

  It is. Yeah, I think one of the things for people who are aware of HRT even at all, I think it's still a perception, it's sort of a pre 2020 perception of like we are purely high frequency trading firm. But we would say we are both high frequency and medium frequency trading firm. And it's like a big part of our business. One way to think about it, I think, is that if I really have a view on what a stock should be in like five days' time, let's say I want to buy that stock, I'm gonna acquire that stock over time. And maybe it's what's the best time to buy that stock over the five day period. Well, I have a model that tells me the best price in an hour. So maybe the shorter term model should inform the longer term trade and cascading all the way down.

• 43:32Joe Weisenthal?

  When you're doing this sort of slightly longer term or slightly slower frequency trading, is the fundamental job still the same, which is you're in the liquidity provision service business just over longer? You want to hold that warehousing? Or does it some, because when I think of a fund, when I think of a hedge fund, I certainly don't think of

• 43:52Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 43:52Joe Weisenthal?

  Maybe to some extent, some of their strategies might be sort of liquidity provision was more directional. Is it still that? Or is the fundamental reason why you make money, the service you provide, does it change? By definition, change over that horizon?

• 44:04Speaker 04

  I think the market making service provision does break down. I think it stretches the analogy too far. I think you have to think of it as like liquidity taking, which somehow seems more like aggressive or something.

• 44:13Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 44:14Speaker 04

  But the we're trading against orders resting on the books. Someone was like, I want to sell the stock and we're like, we will buy it from you because we think that in the long run, it'll be worth doing it. And so we do cross the spread and we do pay this transaction cost sometimes. You know, you can also kind of acquire a position by market making, but with a tilt. So really at the longer horizons, I think the sort of market making service analogy does break down. But in some sense, there's always a counterparty and they wanted to trade for a reason. And I think a mental model that, I don't know, you tell me if this sounds like too wishy washy, but.

• 44:46Joe Weisenthal?

  I love a mental model.

• 44:47Speaker 04

  Yeah. You mentioned go and chess, right? So the thing about those is that they're they're zero sum games. There's only one winner. It's truly like a no, like someone, someone's unhappy, someone was maybe equally unhappy.

• 44:59Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 44:59Speaker 04

  Plus one, minus one. I think the reason that trading works is because it is in some sense positive sum. You know, money is conserved and I guess a little fee goes to the exchange. So in some sense, money is at that moment of a trade is actually negative a little. But utility, people's general happiness, I don't know. My paycheck goes into my 401k provider and it buys some ETFs. I'm relatively like insensitive to how exactly that happens. I just, I'm not going to look at it for another 40 years, right?

• 45:28Joe Weisenthal?

  Don't lie.

• 45:29Speaker 04

  I try not to look at it, especially lately.

• 45:31Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 45:31Speaker 04

  But, uh, yeah, like the utility, my utility is a very long horizon. And so if someone sells it to me like at one cent difference, I don't really care. So, but like the person who made the cents happy and I'm happy because I got good liquidity, didn't cross a huge spread. So that is kind of why I think it all kind of makes sense and why people are trading together. But it's also why like thinking about markets like an alpha go sense doesn't make sense because it's kind of doesn't really apply. If you thought of markets as H I T and and all our competitors all kind of in some sort of like death match, who's the smartest, who's trying to pick each other off, then markets would be kind of like this giant standoff where no one would be trading, everyone would be kind of be like waiting. But obviously markets are very vibrant. I think it's because even when we're crossing the spread, it's because we're crossing this pretty against someone who wanted to sell

• 46:15Speaker 04

  for whatever reason. If we were right, I guess in five days' time, they might be like less happy, but maybe they weren't actually. Maybe they were just like hedging a position. They don't care what the stock's price is in five days. They just wanted to like hedge their position and we traded with them. So that's the way I tell reconciliations in my head. It can still be like a sort of service provision. We make money only because someone else wants to trade. If no one was trading, we wouldn't exist.

• 46:37Tracy Alloway?

  Right. And different market participants with different motivations and goals and aims. I want to go back to the talent question for a second. And I get the sense that engineers like open source and they like contributing to the research ecosystem on AI. And then I get the sense that trading firms probably do not like open source and they're much more into protecting their proprietary models or data or whatever. How does a company like H I T, how do you actually balance that tension?

• 47:06Speaker 04

  Yeah. I mean, this is also like a sort of really honest answer. And that many years ago, this was a relative comparative disadvantage for us for recruiting. Some, we often have conversations with maybe especially PhDs who are graduating and they would say like, well, I can go to Google and I can still publish my research and that kind of gives me optionality. People will know who I am. If I go into an H I T or H I T like firm, I essentially go behind this veil and I never emerge. And people just had to kind of take it on faith. I did smart things for many years. And I would have basically no strong counter argument, apart from the fact that actually writing papers is kind of overrated. I've been there, done that. When you get older, you will not care.

• 47:45Speaker 04

  Now, though, there's this interesting situation where this golden era may be of like being able to be work at a big tech company and be paid for publishing research is very much over. The papers that do come out of the big AI labs are essentially kind of either very stale or not important. And if you're working on the most important cutting edge things, you can't share what you're doing and it's very secretive. So in some sense, the problem solved itself a little bit for me and people now recognize that IP should be protected. I've even seen some of the sort of AI lab people think a lot about non-competes in public, thinking tweeting about non-competes and things, which is an amazing turn of events because I feel like.

• 48:23Joe Weisenthal?

  That was very antithetical.

• 48:24Speaker 04

  Right. I mean, they're like literally effectively banned in the state of California. And I think people were almost like proud of this fact and was also kind of hold it against the New York sort of trading world of being like, oh, look at these people with their non-competes and things. And then someone comes along and pays a hundred million dollars or whatever for like your researchers. And a lot of that money is being paid for talent, but it's also in some sense paying for intellectual property.

• 48:49Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 48:49Speaker 04

  And like those people know how the soup is made and they are not writing it down and not committing any just like explicit sort of IP theft. But if you hire five people who've been making the soup.

• 49:01Joe Weisenthal?

  Process knowledge.

• 49:02Speaker 04

  They know, they know a lot of process knowledge and you might suddenly feel a little differently about protecting that we spend a lot of time training our employees. Takes a long time for them to be productive. On some sense, it would be a shame if people could just take that knowledge and immediately leave. And so, yeah.

• 49:21Tracy Alloway?

  Just going back to the steamroller. I promised, I promised we would. When I hear AI in trading or I know people are very excited about agent based AI nowadays. Part of me thinks back to one of the more amusing events in financial history, which is, Joe, I'm sure you remember the time that one of Knight Capital's algos went rogue.

• 49:42Joe Weisenthal?

  Many people would not find that to be an amusing event at all, the worst nightmare possible, but amusing from.

• 49:46Tracy Alloway?

  For them.

• 49:47Joe Weisenthal?

  The peanut gallery.

• 49:48Tracy Alloway?

  Right, right. Schadenfreude. So this algo went rogue and bought like seven billion dollars worth of stocks. Yeah, exactly. What are the guardrails that you put in place to avoid the destiny of Knight Capital?

• 50:01Speaker 04

  So every training cycle, we have a talk about the nightmare with the K. And we have multiple ex Knight employees at HRT, as you might expect, just from a lineage of a successful trading firm that ended in a kind of unhappy way. And we have many people who are at Knight.

• 50:16Joe Weisenthal?

  The story is crazy, a successful trading firm that ended in about 15 minutes.

• 50:19Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 50:20Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 50:20Speaker 04

  So it's fair to say that that stuff haunts us and we try and take as many lessons away from that as possible, defense and layers. So I think one of the things that I like to emphasize with the AI stuff in particular is that it is not like there is some neural network directly sending orders to NIZI. It is in some sense providing a plan and then traditional human, heavily audited, risk-checked layers take the actions. And that's just kind of how it has to be. And so for us, we are kind of on an operational day-to-day basis. It's just many, many layers of sanity checking throughout the day. And then at a sort of high level, it's a very careful process, including processes to specifically

• 51:01Speaker 04

  avoid the KCG type scenario of how are you even releasing new versions and what pre-release checks do you run and audits? And we even during the day, we have some, I don't know, I guess you could call them like sanity checks of the neural networks to make sure that they are producing the values that we expected they would be producing. And those sort of checking processes are kind of a little bit behind because they can't keep up with the like flow, but they're enough to kind of just again, like every check of a numeric stability of the model saying and things. It's not, it's not about losing money or making money in J D V's. It's not like, oh, like risk in the kind of financial sense, it's like operational risk, but paranoia is deep. And that's probably something that's still very different, I think, from this market, from the sort of other AI world, which.

• 51:46Speaker 04

  I guess anything goes and like failure rates are kind of just priced in.

• 51:50Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 51:50Speaker 04

  But yeah, you could you could imagine just ruining everything. And I I guess we worry about losing money. But I think we worry more about taking an action that a regulator would not want us to do. Because if you lose that trust of regulators, you lose it for a very long time. We trade in a lot of markets and we pay very close attention and have deep respect for regulators and their decisions in all of us markets. And the rules are sometimes very complex. And man, do we watch that stuff like a hawk because you don't want to be kicked out of a country for making an operational error. And this is a very low tolerance culture from regulators in terms of making mistakes. So we stress it a lot. And I think we should because it's it's you know, like the profit you make in 10 years by still being in the game versus move fast and break things. It's not move fast and break things, but you still want to move fast.

• 52:35Joe Weisenthal?

  I have like a million more questions. I but for the sake of time, I'll just ask one more. And I don't know even know whether it's something you're in position, great position to answer about. It's something I actually wanted to do an entire episode about at some point. But as you would characterize it, what happens in the second after a jobs report is released? And what I'm talking about specifically is numbers either flash on the screen or a piece of a text appears on a website. And markets move around a lot, all that. And there's people, then suddenly it's actually the jobs report was good. And if you actually look at the wage number and then the stock, but in that instant, in that first microsecond after the release, markets are already moving.

• 53:14Speaker 04

  I know.

• 53:15Joe Weisenthal?

  Certainly before any human has had a chance to read the thing or form of view. So what I assume is that there's training on here is the text and here are the things and whatever. But to as you would put it, or from the perspective of HRT, what happens in the millisecond after an event?

• 53:32Speaker 04

  Yeah. So.

• 53:33Joe Weisenthal?

  Could be an earnings report.

• 53:34Speaker 04

  Yeah. I mean, so we have like a Bloomberg headlines feed that is like probably pretty low latency. And if it's like a important article, it's like a star in the feed, things like this, right? But you can do everything from having kind of a handcrafted logic to look for keywords through to putting it through like an AI model. One of the things I like. Still can't kind of wrap my head around is, I guess, without saying specific company names, there are options trading firms that have thousands of people that are essentially cyborg trading options. They have maybe 10 people trading like the options for a single big stock like Nvidia, say. And they are humans staring at the feeds for these things and clicking buttons.

• 54:17Speaker 04

  And they have user interfaces that'll sit up for them to hit the green button or the red button essentially very fast.

• 54:22Joe Weisenthal?

  That job.

• 54:23Speaker 04

  It's weird. We actually once-

• 54:24Joe Weisenthal?

  Like a monkey on a computer.

• 54:25Speaker 04

  For a hackathon, we got a PlayStation controller and kind of gave people the chance to try and practice reacting to events very fast. It's really tough, but it's a learnable skill. I think in an efficient market sense, this should be AI-able.

• 54:38Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 54:39Speaker 04

  It is challenging though, because if you're imagining to kind of plumbing it into ChatGPT, it would be too slow. Like the latency would probably be sufficiently high. I mean, it's not that fast, right? It's fast for any normal day-to-day thing, but for markets, it's kind of slow. Also, and this is like a very interesting research challenge, is like you can't literally use ChatGPT to backtest anything. It knows every Jerome Powell speech and knows what happened afterwards because it's trained on the whole internet. So how do you really get confidence that for the next Federal Reserve speech, it's going to do the right thing? Traditionally in finance, you backtest things to see how it had done in the past. But if, in this case, it's all kind of in sample, like it's seen it all before.

• 55:19Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 55:19Speaker 04

  And I've seen academic finance papers of a try and like grapple with this and they say it still works and they try and account for this. But I don't know, just this stuff is really that smart.

• 55:27Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 55:28Speaker 04

  The whole kind of thesis is that it's memorized everything it's been trained on. So why would it be reliable? And so whenever you see someone's being like, oh, I ran every Federal Reserve speech through ChatGPT and it got it right like nine out of 10 times. It's like, only nine out of 10 times? Like, why not 100%? So I do find that- I do think it is interesting there are how many humans are still involved on relatively high-speed trading. There are a lot of people still doing this in sort of niche products. And it's presumably because it's very hard to integrate all the information. It's AGI 20, I don't know, 2028, 2030, I don't know. There's still a lot of humans trading stocks and options. And so like, I don't know how to reconcile that, but I think about that when I read.

• 56:12Joe Weisenthal?

  Ian Dunning, that was fantastic. There really are like hours more of conversation. Sure.

• 56:16Tracy Alloway?

  Are we gonna have him back on next week?

• 56:18Joe Weisenthal?

  Have you back next week. Looking forward to next week's episode. But no, that was great.

• 56:21Speaker 04

  Thank you for having me.

• 56:22Joe Weisenthal?

  Really appreciate it.

• 56:23Speaker 04

  Yeah, a pleasure. Thank you.

• 56:37Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, I thought that was really great. I like this idea, this sort of antisemitism, because you do hear a lot of people say, oh, no, like, AI could solve things like chess or whatever. But the stock market is fundamentally different. And I've never been totally satisfied with some of the theories for why. And like, I get, stocks are not like necessarily like a solvable problem in quite the same way. But humans make money on the market by matching patterns. Why can't smart silicon brains do the same thing?

• 57:04Tracy Alloway?

  Well, there's also history now. We have many years of HFT trading and algorithmically driven trading where people have made a lot of money. So it seems to be working. The lightbulb moment for me was where Ian talked about the timeframe and the importance of the timeframe. And I think that's really the key in many ways. It's adapting what you're doing with AI to the data that's available. And the data on markets, most of it is going to be very short term and more seconds than minutes, more minutes than days, et cetera, et cetera. And a lot of the data is also biased to immediacy versus past analysis, which he spoke about as well.

• 57:44Joe Weisenthal?

  It is always funny in finance, people are like, oh, 17 out of 19 times, there's been this death cross of the S and P 500 stocks went down. It's like, any serious data scientist would spit at that sample. It's like beyond a joke level to talk about a sample size of 19.

• 58:02Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah, but putting death cross in a headline is so tempting.

• 58:07Joe Weisenthal?

  That's true. You all, you cannot advise a journalist, never pass up a chance to put death cross. I was glad to hear, I thought a few things were interesting. One is, I was glad to hear that the wire length problem is no longer a thing. It's not just this race to get closer to the exchange.

• 58:21Tracy Alloway?

  That was kind of boring when people were talking about the Cold War and HFT and all of that.

• 58:26Joe Weisenthal?

  It's interesting that the GPU market is eased versus where it may have been a couple of years ago. And it's interesting that even at a scale of a trading shop, that electricity is proving to be a main constraint, which does raise questions about, are we just going to hit up against a wall, given some of the AI plans that so many people are banking on for the chatbots?

• 58:47Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah, I thought also, I guess, the cultural shift in some of the labs was really interesting, this idea that they've become more proprietary and perhaps more mysterious in some ways, rather than the trading firms becoming more open.

• 59:02Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, lots of great conversation, answered some questions, plenty more to go.

• 59:07Tracy Alloway?

  That was helpful, and I'm sure we'll talk to him again. Maybe not next week, but soon-ish.

• 59:12Joe Weisenthal?

  Maybe next year.

• 59:13Tracy Alloway?

  All right, shall we leave it there?

• 59:14Joe Weisenthal?

  Let's leave it there.

• 59:15Tracy Alloway?

  This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

• 59:20Joe Weisenthal?

  And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our guest, Ian Dunning. He's at Ian Dunning. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armin, Dashil Bennett at Dashbot, and Kell Brooks at Kell Brooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg.com/oddlots, or the daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24/7 in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

• 59:43Tracy Alloway?

  And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we dive into how companies are actually using AI, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

• 1:00:35Speaker 07

  Congratulations, you've built a dashboard. But now comes the follow-up question, and the follow-up to the follow-up, and the dashboard for that. Meet Hex. Give everyone the power to ask their own questions, explore data, and build with AI, all in natural language. Because every answer should spark another question, limited only by your curiosity, not your data team's bandwidth. Go deeper than dashboards. Visit hex.ai.

• 1:01:06Speaker 07

  If you're a business owner, you need a card that can keep up. With the Delta SkyMiles Reserve Business American Express Card, everyday purchases transform into miles you can use towards future travel. So business as usual can lead to a well-deserved getaway. And for

• 1:01:21Speaker 02

  a limited time, card members can earn 200,000 bonus miles, the highest miles offered this year. Whether you're traveling for business or planning your next adventure, now's a great time to make every purchase go further. Apply today at www.delta.com/podcast. Offer ends November 4. Minimum spending requirements and terms apply. If you listen to financial news, you know a lot of time is spent thinking about what's next. The next opportunity, the next investment, the next move. But sometimes, what matters most is being ready for what you never saw coming. For more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has worked with independent agents to help protect businesses, homes, valuables, and more.

• 1:02:04Speaker 02

  Because planning for the future isn't only about knowing what's next, it's about making sure you're ready for what you can't predict. Let Cincinnati Insurance make your bad day better. Find an independent agent at C I N F I N dot com.

• 1:02:19Speaker 06

  For big business, AI opened up a world of promise, but that world of promise turned into a world of pain. Costs spiraling, data trapped, security and governance risks multiplying, and ROI out of reach. That's why enterprises turned to Boomi to connect data, apps, and AI, helping them operate securely, efficiently, and at scale. Boomi turns a world of AI pain into a world of AI gain. As Boomi says, "We got you." Head to Boomi.com. That's B O O M I dot com.