Irving Wladawsky-Berger

The 2024 State of Open Source in Financial Services

“For the financial services industry, open source collaboration is a strategically relevant practice” said “The 2024 State of Open Source in Financial Services,” the fourth annual research report by the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS) in partnership with Linux Foundation Research. Over the past four years, this study has aimed to provide concrete industry-wide trends about the state of open source adoption in the financial services industry. “Even in the relatively short time since studying sector trends in open source began, we’ve seen encouraging signals for the financial services industry that there are numerous benefits to realize through increased collaboration at the precompetitive level of technology stacks and that more participants in the sector are coming on board.”

As in prior years, the report is based on empirical evidence, including a global survey, industry data, and insights from interviews with senior finance and IT leaders.

The global survey was conducted in May and June of 2024 and received responses from 249 qualified individuals, — 39% from North America, 28% from Europe, and 29% from Asia-Pacific countries. 58% of respondents worked in financial institutions, and 35% were employed by providers of financial and IT services.

“Altogether, the data and the trends collectively underscore the growing importance of open source in driving innovation, enhancing efficiency, and fostering collaboration. Our findings reveal that financial services organizations are not only consuming open source software at increased levels to achieve a variety of objectives but also contributing back to the community in meaningful ways … For stakeholders from capital markets, retail or private banking, asset management, insurance, or for those fintech leaders delivering innovative solutions for the sector, there’s more reason than ever to participate in open source ecosystems.”

The Top 10 Emerging Technologies of 2024

Since 2011, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has published an annual list of the Top Ten Emerging Technologies that are likely to be disruptive within three to five years. The Top 10 Emerging Technologies of 2024 was released by the WEF in June. The report is based on the insights of over 300 world-leading academics and researchers from the WEF’s Network of Global Future Councils and University & Research Network, and from the Frontiers network of over 2,000 chief editors from top global institutions.

A survey was distributed to members of these various networks asking them to propose technologies for the 2024 Top 10 list. The survey received over 300 valid technology nominations from 29 countries. After an initial screening, the Top 10 Emerging Technologies Steering Group was presented with a curated list of 70 technologies from which the final ten were selected based on four criteria:

• Novelty: The technology is emerging and at an early stage of development but is not yet widely used.
• Applicability: The technology is potentially of significant use and benefit to societies and economies.
• Depth: The technology is attracting increased development, investment, and excitement.
• Power: The technology is potentially game-changing to established ways and industries.

AI Advances Aren’t Likely to Occur Nearly as Quickly as Many Believe

“What if the A.I. Boosters Are Wrong?,” asked a recent NY Times article in its title. “A skeptical paper by Daron Acemoglu, a labor economist at M.I.T., has triggered a heated debate over whether artificial intelligence will supercharge productivity,” it added. “The bullish camp has great  hopes for AI,” such as whether the technology will usher the next industrial revolution which could help wipe out poverty around the world. “But if the boosters are wrong, it could be trouble for the developed world, which is in desperate need of a productivity breakthrough as its work force ages and declines.”

(Before continuing with the blog, let me mention that on October 14, 2024, Professor Acemoglu was awarded the 2024 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences along with his MIT colleague Simon Johnson, and University of Chicago economist James Robinson.)

“Artificial intelligence (AI) has captured imaginations,” wrote Acemoglu in “The Simple Macroeconomics of AI,” the skeptical paper referenced in the NYT article. “Promises of rapid, even unparalleled, productivity growth as well as new pathways for complementing humans have become commonplace. There is no doubt that recent developments in generative AI and large language models that produce text, information and images — and Shakespearean sonnets — in response to simple user prompts are impressive and even spellbinding.”

“AI will have implications for the macroeconomy, productivity, wages and inequality, but all of them are very hard to predict,” he added. “This has not stopped a series of forecasts over the last year, often centering on the productivity gains that AI will trigger. Some experts believe that truly transformative implications, including artificial general intelligence (AGI) enabling AI to perform essentially all human tasks, could be around the corner.” But, according to Acemoglu, AI will contribute only modest improvements to worker productivity and will add no more than 1 percent to U.S. economic output over the next decade.

Large Language Models (LLMs): Mistaking Engineering Achievements for Human Linguistic Competence

“Mistaking the impressive engineering achievements of LLMs for the mastering of human language, language understanding, and linguistic acts has dire implications for various forms of social participation, human agency, justice and policies surrounding them,” wrote cognitive scientists Abeba Birhane and Marek McGann in a recent paper, “Large models of what? Mistaking engineering achievements for human linguistic agency.” “Hyperbolic claims surrounding LLMs often (mis)uses terms that are naturally applied to the experiences, capabilities, and characteristics of human beings.”

LLMs impressive abilities to respond to, and generate natural language are based on their training using massive language data sets generally sourced from the World Wide Web. The training involves breaking down text or speech into tokens, typically a few characters in length, to develop a statistical model of language. Powerful statistical techniques and lots of computational power are then used to analyze the relationship between billions of tokens in order to generate grammatically valid sequences of token concatenations in response to a question or prompt.

Birhane and McGann note that “the processing of datasets and the generation of output are engineering problems, word prediction or sequence extension grounded in the underlying distribution of previously processed text. The generated text need not necessarily adhere to ‘facts’ in the real world,” which is why LLMs are prone to hallucinations, a response generated by its algorithms that, while statistically and grammatically correct, is actually false or misleading real-world information.

Will AI Devour Software Engineering (SE)?

“Social media provide a steady diet of dire warnings that artificial intelligence (AI) will make software engineering (SE) irrelevant or obsolete,” wrote CMU computer scientists Eunsuk Kang and Mary Shaw in their September, 2024 paper, “tl;dr: Chill, y’all: AI Will Not Devour SE.” [tl;dr: a summary of a longer text]. “To the contrary, the engineering discipline of software is rich and robust; it encompasses the full scope of software design, development, deployment, and practical use; and it has regularly assimilated radical new offerings from AI.”

“Current AI innovations such as machine learning, large language models (LLMs) and generative AI will offer new opportunities to extend the models and methods of SE. They may automate some routine development processes, and they will bring new kinds of components and architectures. If we’re fortunate they may force SE to rethink what we mean by correctness and reliability. They will not, however, render SE irrelevant.”

“What’s with the cries of alarm about AI’s threats to SE?,” asked Kang and Shaw. Social media is full of “angst about the imminent demise of SE at the hands of AI.” Their paper referenced a few recent articles about AI’s potential threat to SE: “The End of Programming,”which noted that “The end of classical computer science is coming, and most of us are dinosaurs waiting for the meteor to hit”; “ChatGPT Will Replace Programmers Within 10 Years”; and “NVIDIA CEO says the future of coding as a career might already be dead in the water with the imminent prevalence of AI.”

“It seems that either AI systems are so different from ‘regular’ software systems that SE knowledge has become obsolete or irrelevant, or else AI will soon take over programming, and by extension software development.” I found this last comment very telling, because, as I read related articles, — like “The rise — and fall — of the software developer” and “Tech Jobs Have Dried Up—and Aren’t Coming Back Soon,” it became clear that software engineering is not a well understood discipline and is often confused and used interchangeably with computer programming and software development, important tasks whose scope is significantly more limited than software engineering.