The summary to me is here:

> Almost all the models had a tech-heavy portfolio which led them to do well. Gemini ended up in last place since it was the only one that had a large portfolio of non-tech stocks.

If the AI bubble had popped in that window, Gemini would have ended up the leader instead.

▲

turtletontine 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Yup. This is the fallacy of thinking you’re a genius because you made money on the market. Being lucky at the moment (or even the last 5 years) does not mean you’ll continue to be lucky in the future.

“Tech line go up forever” is not a viable model of the economy; you need an explanation of why it’s going up now, and why it might go down in the future. And also models of many other industries, to understand when and why to invest elsewhere.

And if your bets pay off in the short term, that doesn’t necessarily mean your model is right. You could have chosen the right stocks for the wrong reasons! Past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance.

	▲	gwd 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What would have been impressive is if the favored industries, or individual companies, experienced a major drop during the target testing window, and the LLMs managed to pull out of those industries before they dropped.
	▲	Vegenoid 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Clearly AI is not a bubble, look how good it is at predicting the stock market!