The Perceptron is Back in Action

This week marked an important milestone for long-time Brownstone readers.

And for me, as well.

One of my main missions in returning to Brownstone Research was to fulfill on the promises and services made to my readers during my first time around the block.

And relaunching one of our most popular research services, Neural Net Profits, which had been shut down, was a big part of fulfilling on that mission.

I want to thank those who attended Wednesday’s event and participated in bringing The Perceptron back home this week.

I spent over $1 million developing my artificial intelligence-powered trading system, which I have already filed a patent for, and the timing  of the relaunch this week couldn’t be better…

In the world of cryptocurrencies, we’re in what I think of as a healthy volatile market, which is a very good environment to be trading in (see the Perceptron’s trading record below). But in the next 3-6 months, my team and I believe that we’re gearing up for a bull market in crypto, which, not surprisingly, is going to be optimal for a trading service like this.

My team behind Neural Net Profits and I just released our first three Perceptron recommendations. For any self-directed investors looking to take advantage of the coming surge we are predicting in crypto, discover how to get involved right here.

We have so much more to look forward to.

Jeff

Perceptron’s Performance

I am a longtime Brownstone Unlimited member, and as I recall the Perceptron did not do too well. I would be curious what the results of the actual trade recommendations were? Not just wins vs. losses, but the percentage gain of each winner and loser. I remember most winners were under 10% 🤷‍♂️. Thanks!

 – William C.

Hi William,

I appreciate you writing in, and I’m happy to provide the track record of the Perceptron, both when it operated under the banner of Neural Net Profits and then under Palm Beach Crypto Trader, where it was rebranded as CONAN following my departure. Aside from all the wins, there are a couple things that I’d like to point out.

During the cryptowinter of 2022 and early 2023, holding times were longer between signals, averaging about 94 days as compared to healthy market conditions, which averaged 37 days. Win rate was 79% in the bear market and 100% in healthy market conditions, as you’ll see below.

We intentionally programmed the Perceptron to be cautious in bear market conditions to protect against any large downside. This proved to be effective, as we had a 79% win rate and a total return of 223.9% over the period.

At the moment, we are in volatile – but healthy – market conditions for cryptocurrencies. This is great for trading. And I am very bullish as I look out 3-6 months.

We fully expect that the Perceptron will deliver its best performance under bull market conditions (i.e. defined by highest overall performance and shorter windows for holding period).

Here is the actual historical trade record for the Perceptron:

Perceptron under Neural Net Profits (note: this was a bear market, bitcoin dropped 40.5% during this period):

Average Return: 20.3%

Average Hold Period: 94.2 days

Win rate: 79%

BTC Return Over Period: -40.5%

Percentage Total Return Over Period: 223.9%

Perceptron (Renamed CONAN) under Palm Beach Crypto Trader:

Average Return: 32.3%

Average Hold Period: 37.13

Win rate: 100%

BTC Return Over Period: 46.2%

Percentage Total Return Over Period: 119.1% (annualized, product was active for 104 days as CONAN)

I don’t know another crypto trading service with a record as good as this one, and I don’t say this to brag. I couldn’t be more thrilled to be able to relaunch this service for my subscribers – both old and new.

We’ve invested a lot more and make some improvements in the Perceptron and its training over the last six months.  It’s better than ever and I’m happy to say my team and I just published our first Perceptron picks, with many more to come…

And for a limited time, you can still participate in the service at a steep discount. Click here to learn how to get started.

Concerning the news out of Lebanon [on September 17–18] concerning exploding pagers: How could that possibly be done? Clearly it was no accident. I think that the only pager component that could explode is the battery, but how could a pager battery or any other component be made to explode from a remote location? Regards.

 – Robert F.

Hi Robert,

Your instincts are correct. It wasn’t an accident, and pagers do not naturally explode like that.

One possibility is that the modifications with explosives were made at the pager manufacturing site.

The other possibility, which I think is more likely, is that the modifications were done somewhere along the supply chain. In other words, the pagers were intercepted somewhere between the manufacturer and the final destination, and the modifications were made then.

This kind of supply chain attack is not unusual. For example, the National Security Agency has been known to intercept shipments of internet routing equipment from Juniper Networks or Cisco in order to upload software onto the routing equipment, effectively a back door, before they arrive at their final destination.

This approach seems the most logical with respect to the exploding pagers.

I apologize for not finding the appropriate path for giving my feedback, but I wanted Jeff Brown’s take on something I noticed in the “Safety Metric” on Open AI. It was under the heading “Safe completions of harmful prompts,” specifically the line, “Violent or criminal harassment against a protected group.” I see this as a notable bias. Who defines “protected?” Which groups are unprotected?

– Tammy M.

Hi Tammy,

You have a keen eye, and you are exactly right. Some safety metrics are pretty obvious to measure and put in place, and others clearly represent metrics that require some level of subjectivity.

On the surface, the companies that are building these technologies are the ones that are determining what is harmful or not. Or which groups are protected or not.

I’ve been openly critical of Alphabet (Google, YouTube), Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), Microsoft (LinkedIn), and OpenAI for their clear bias and political narrative. My criticism is not based on opinion but based on what was learned from the release of the Twitter files and all that was unearthed in the U.S. Congressional hearings.

What we learned was that it wasn’t just the companies that were actively working to both manipulate election outcomes and insert bias and political narrative into social media platforms. It was the White House, the CDC, and other government agencies that were actively collaborating with these technology companies.

It came as a major surprise when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg came out and admitted not only to what we already knew, but he also expressed his regret in the role that he and his company had in spreading incorrect information, manipulating the public, and pushing government-led political narratives.

Zuckerberg is now trying to reposition himself as being more libertarian in an effort to take a more neutral stance. My speculation is that this is a proactive effort at self-preservation. He is preparing for what might be change in the White House, and he is trying to appear less biased, otherwise he might find himself and Meta in a lot of trouble for things like election interference and clear violations of the U.S. Constitution, for the banning and censoring of scientists and experts in their fields.

At the moment, the most neutral party in the race to AGI is xAI, led by Elon Musk. And of course X (Twitter), which is better than ever. It’s use of Community Notes has proven to be very effective in identifying false videos, images, and misinformation, and adds material context to any controversial issues.

This particular issue is one for the ages. In Latin, quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? Meaning, who will guard the guards? Or now more commonly known as, who will watch the watchers?

And the answer is us, we the people. When the watchers, the government, Google, Facebook, etc. overreach, it’s our job to stand up and advocate for change.  If the system is rigged, we need to advocate to change the system. If the mass media is nothing but propaganda, let’s not give them our business… eventually they’ll go under.

Dear Jeff, Elon Musk seems to be a big believer in free speech but also the transhumanist agenda. We can imagine how this is going to unfold. We will not be forced to get a brain implant but people without one will be at a severe disadvantage.

Once this technology becomes affordable and most people have one, “The Government” will force the makers to put in a backdoor. I am not looking forward to having a backdoor directly into my brain, this would be a whole new dimension of surveillance and control. What are your thoughts?

 – Ralf W.

Hi Ralf,

This is such an interesting topic, and a heavy one, as well.

I don’t really put Musk into the transhumanist camp, which generally has negative connotations.  Musk’s position is more nuanced. The point that he makes is that we’re basically already cyborgs.  We are “attached” to our technological devices for almost all of our waking hours, and those devices enhance our productivity.

But there’s one constraint. Our ability to use that technology is limited by the speed of our connectivity with those devices. His point is that if we have a neural link (this is where the name Neuralink came from), we could dramatically increase the input/output speeds and augment our own intelligence with artificial intelligence.

I don’t ever see Musk advocating for mandating an implant. But your point is spot on, those that don’t will be at a disadvantage for certain kinds of work. But that doesn’t mean that those who do not receive an implant will not be able to function. We’ll still be the “cyborgs” that we are today, but empowered with our own AGI’s augmenting our own work. We may not be “linked” with our AGIs with the highest speed interface, but we’ll still be augmented and empowered by the technology.

The frightening kind of trans-humanist agenda is that of the World Economic Forum and its key scientific advisor Yuval Harari. They intend to use technological implants to control the mass population, to control emotions, and to control our behaviors. It is sick and evil what he and the WEF have been planning and precisely the kind of agenda that we need to stand up against.

If you would like to understand the contempt with which Harari and the WEF speak about us useless and worthless humans, I strongly encourage watching this short clip of Harari when he is speaking about “what to do with all of the useless people.”  It’s only two minutes and can be watched here.

People like the WEF, Harari, and those currently in control of the U.S. government have been aggressively pushing for added surveillance and control, and yes, even a backdoor into our brains.  Although I would argue with almost complete control over social media platforms (as we learned through the Twitter files and congressional hearings) and complete control over the mass media, “they” already do have a backdoor into a large part of the population.

The most valuable asset that we have as human beings is our ability for critical thinking and objective thought. Without it, it always results in chaos, division, and ruin.

Jeff,

A little off-topic from the usual discussions on The Bleeding Edge and AMA, but I have a question about a sector in biotech that I’ve been following for a few years now, and I wanted to know if you have any knowledge about it.

Questions: Do you follow the psychedelics sector of biomedical research? If so, what are your thoughts on the future of the use of psychedelic compounds to treat depression, anxiety, addiction, etc.? How do you see, if at all, AI playing into the future of the research and delivery of these treatments?

Several phase 2 and 3 studies by different companies have shown exceptional results in treating these disorders compared to traditional medicines (SSRIs, etc).

I have high hopes for this sector, not only from a moral and ethical standpoint but also a financial one as well. In my view, a win-win. It’s clear the current gameplan in healthcare is failing miserably in attempts to treat these disorders. My hope is the FDA doesn’t handcuff the sector as more exceptional data is released from these phase 3 studies.

Look forward to hearing from you and hope all is well.

 – Jonathan S.

Hi Jonathan,

It’s good that you asked, and I agree with your assessment. There have been some encouraging advancements in this area worth tracking, and I do keep an eye on this corner of the biotech market.

I don’t know how else to say it, but there is so much “crap” in the psychedelic and cannabinoids space, loaded with bad actors, which is why I have avoided publishing any research in this area.  But to your point, that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been promising developments.

The other reason why this is less attractive to me from an investment standpoint are the regulatory challenges associated with these two areas. If there were some major changes from a regulatory standpoint, this obviously would become a high-growth sector of the biotech industry.

And yes, AI will most certainly have an impact on research and development in this sector, as it will in every area of the biotech industry. But the industry will only invest in applying AI in this area if there is a clear regulatory path to FDA approvals and commercialization.