Dallying In The AI Sandbox

So with all this feeding frenzy, bruhaha and turbulent FOMO going on in the markets these days over AI potential and associated investments, I decided, pretty much on the spur of the moment - to run some of the more oft mentioned candidates through by proprietary rating system to determine what I may - or may not, think - if in fact I were to think about it.

Note One) What you are about to view below is the culmination of many minutes of work, research and toil, trial and error, all cohabiting in a broad scope singular linear space in a constantly evolving motion all with the goal of developing the perfect stock ranking/rating tool.

Note Two: I am an amateur investor and everything and anything you might stumble across here is simply workshop data in very critical need of detailed background research and further exploration.

The Ratings:

  1. PLTR…451.5

  2. SMCI…447

  3. TSM…426

  4. AVGO…420.5

  5. MSFT…417.5

  6. NVDA…409.5

  7. TSLA…409

  8. META…390

  9. MU…296

These ratings were actually generated a week or so ago; but, for whatever reason, I was undecided on releasing the results. I find it very easy to design a system to come up with ratings. The difficulty lies within the realm of accurately interpreting the ratings. In an effort to do just that I am singularly sad to report a failed test over the last several days…to wit: Targeted Bottle Rocket Proof of Theory/Ratings Test.

A few days past July 4th my retired landscape General sobered up and noticed that we had a healthy supply of Bottle rockets left over from the holiday. I believe it was actually Sunday July 7th around noon or so. The details of this Proof of Theory/Ratings Test are as follows:

  1. We decided to test the ratings above by attaching the name of each stock in the ratings to a bottle rocket and firing them at a targeted area of three concentric rings - sort of like a bullseye only different. Our theory was that if the ratings were accurate then the higher rated stocks would fall closer to the center of the targeted area. This seemed like a very good concept at the time.

  2. As with all scientific endeavors we built in some redundancy by having a second, back-up set of Bottle Rockets with stock symbols attached. We wanted to make sure that our initial test results could be repeated.

After the first round of bottle rockets were fired it was determined that most of them went no where near the targeted area and secondly that when they exploded the little bits of paper with the stock symbols were obliterated creating a big mess. And thats when the All-Too-Lovely got involved. She was upset I suppose because we were interrupting one of here clubs tea. And it didn’t seem to matter when I explained to her I was testing an important stock ranking system.

After things calmed down we decided to just go ahead and fire the second round but with a slightly engineered change: Instead of taping the stock symbols to the rockets we attached them to pieces of kite string and then taped the kite string to the bottle rockets. Sadly - this simply didn’t work either and in the end led to another chewing out by the All-Too-Lovely, some dirty looks from her club cronies, and then we had to clean up the mess.

But…thats the way it goes in the scientific process. A lot of things fail before they fall right and it is all a journey to knowledge. We are designing a new test which I think might work better. It involves bating hooks with stock symbols attached under the theory that which ever symbol reels in the biggest fish is obviously the best stock in the ratings and should correlate to the list in the exact same order. I suggested we use crickets but the landscape General wants to go with worms; although, I am not sure which might be best

The problem will be trying to get the fish off the hook while not obliterating the stock symbols.

All the Best,
BDH Investing


Dang I guess MMYT was obliterated before it even got off the ground?

1 Like

Scientific research costs a lot of money and I am trying to get a grant.