Psyching Out Borrowers

Follow-up on yesterday’s article about personality tests approval to get loans. Payoff adds a touch of algorithms on top of psychology to determine the creditworthness of the borrower.

Galen helped develop the matching algorithms at eHarmony, which are responsible for 4 percent of U.S. marriages. We’re using his expertise to bring psychology to finance. Our science is ultimately about behavior change and helping people make better financial decisions. This process of change begins with self-understanding, and we’re using advanced psychometric assessments to understand people’s mindsets— the goal being to improve how they approach their financial decisions. We’ve taken the hundreds of questions you might answer in a typical psychometric assessment and compressed them into a three-minute “gamified” online assessment that gauges your financial personality.

→ Bloomberg

Robots On Wall Street ?

As automation in financial services grows, computers and algorithms have taken on some of the traditional work of traders, clerks and financial advisers. Now, a host of startups that use artificial intelligence to write news stories and other reports have set their sights on writing work at banks and financial-service companies.

→ The Wall Street Journal

Robots Can’t Dance

A great interview with Ken Goldberg :

There are so many aspects of human unpredictability that we don’t have a model for. When you watch a ballet or a dance or see a great athlete and realize the amazing abilities, you start to appreciate those things that are uniquely human. The ability to have an emotional response, to be compelling, to be able to pick up on subtle emotional signals from others, those are all things that we haven’t made any progress on with robots.

→ Nautilus

Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

What Kasparov might have sensed when he played Deep Blue is something that appeared like that creative randomness, which he took to be a “human” intuition of danger. Deep Blue programmer Feng-Hsiung Hsu writes in his book Behind Deep Blue that during the match, outside analysts were divided over a mysterious move made by the program, thinking it either weak or obliquely strategic. Eventually, the programmers discovered that the move was simply the result of a bug that had caused the computer not to choose what it had actually calculated to be the best move—something that could have appeared as random play. The bug wasn’t fixed until after game four, long after Kasparov’s spirit had been broken.

→ Nautilus