« | Home | »

It’s alive!

Tags: | | |

Geneva's Finest Hedge Fund Manager

Apocalypses aren’t what they used to be. Thirty years ago, science fiction stories about sentient computers taking over the world tended to imagine them trying to wipe us all out using nuclear bombs (The Terminator, War Games). These days, if Robert Harris’s new novel, The Fear Index, is anything to go by, the rogue AI’s weapon of choice is the financial markets. ‘Tales of computers out of control are a well-worn fictional theme,’ Donald MacKenzie wrote in the LRB earlier this year,

so it’s important to emphasise that it is not at all clear that automated trading is any more dangerous than the human trading it is replacing… What needs weighing against this, however, are the implications of one strange and disturbing episode that lasted a mere 20 minutes on the afternoon of 6 May 2010. The overall prices of US shares, and of the index futures contracts that are bets on those prices, fell by about 6 per cent in around five minutes, a fall of almost unprecedented rapidity (it’s typical for broad market indices to change by a maximum of between 1 and 2 per cent in an entire day). Overall prices then recovered almost as quickly, but gigantic price fluctuations took place in some individual shares.

The Fear Index (for my money Harris’s most enjoyable novel since Enigma) offers a thrillerish explanation for the events of that afternoon. Alexander Hoffmann (as in E.T.A., famous for writing stories about nutcrackers that come to life) is an awkward mathematical genius who used to work at CERN but is now running a hedge fund in Geneva. All the trading at Hoffmann Investment Technologies is done by computer algorithms. Nothing so unusual about that; but VIXAL-4, as the frankenfund is known, is special because it takes human emotional responses – above all, fear – into account in its calculations. And it’s very, very good at making money. ‘One could no more pass judgment on it than one could on a shark,’ Hoffmann thinks, as he watches it grow implacably richer, oblivious to the misery it leaves in its wake. ‘It was simply behaving like a hedge fund.’

The trouble is, if you feed an artificial intelligence – or, as Hoffmann prefers, ‘autonomous machine learning’ – system on fear, things are sooner or later bound to go horribly wrong. And on 6 May 2010, Alexander Hoffmann has a very, very bad day. It takes him a surprisingly long time to work out what’s going on – for quite a while he can’t decide if someone’s out to get him or he’s going mad – so you start to wonder how clever he can really be, but then readers have the edge on him, since the epigraph to the first chapter comes from Frankenstein.

It’s all fairly silly, and fairly entertaining: what better way to pass a few idle hours as the global economy goes down the pan than by reading about a bunch of really rich and really unpleasant people having a really terrible time? But if you want to know what actually happened on 6 May 2010, read MacKenzie. And if you want to read about a giant autonomous learning system that may or may not actually be taking over the world, try this.

Comments on “It’s alive!”

  1. splimwad says:

    The line about ‘a load of rich people having a terrible time’ tickled me somewhat :)
    I love Thomas Harris, and really look forward to reading the book.
    My favorite movie were AI gets ot of hand is the Matrix. Computers and AI literally destroy the earth!
    Regards
    Chris

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement