Investment advisors pay the price for selling what looked a lot like AI fairy tales

Two investment advisors have reached settlements with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly exaggerating their use of AI, which in both cases were purported to be cornerstones of their offerings. Canada-based Delphia and San Francisco-headquartered Global Predictions will cough up $225,000 and $175,000 …

[Doctor Syntax]

"Delphia and Global Predictions marketed to their clients and prospective clients that they were using AI in certain ways when, in fact, they were not."

If they actually had used it perhaps they should have been charged more.

[cyberdemon]

Or er, less?

I'm not sure how involving a bullshit mangler improves the value of anything?

[Flocke Kroes]

Value of bullshit

For any subject, the number of people who know what they are talking about is a small minority. Share price is set by the majority.

[T. F. M. Reader]

In this case they peddled bullshit and they couldn't even blame AI for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No "AI" involved banner

I am seriously considering putting a No "AI" involved banner on one of my online services to increase its authority and perceived value.

[T. F. M. Reader]

Re: No "AI" involved banner

Consider "Only natural intelligence involved"?

[Bebu]

Re: No "AI" involved banner

《Consider "Only natural intelligence involved"?》

Consider "Only Organic intelligence involved."

You can then be certified organic and definitely compostsble ;)

[DJO]

Re: No "AI" involved banner

Got to be careful there, "Intelligence" has many levels across the range of animals exhibiting some "intelligent" behaviour.

Using "Organic Intelligence" could mean you have a marmoset picking names from a bag. Which might work quite well as tests using random selections have occasionally performed better than advisors. (but not often enough to be worth considering with real money).