3 ms·
> They have to use rules. There are rules and then there are rules. It is the details of the particular rule that is of interest. The use of "AI" in that arti
by gwright 4y ago
> They have to use rules.
There are rules and then there are rules. It is the details of the particular rule that is of interest. The use of "AI" in that article seems like clickbait to me.
The article seems to suggest that predictions based on aggregate statistics are being applied to implement strict coverage approval for individuals. That seems like a complete misunderstanding of predictive value of those statistics for a particular individual. Not sure if that is gross incompetance or malfeasance. Either way, a problem.
- nerdponx 4y agoWhenever money is involved, invert Hanlon's razor. High prior on malice, low prior on ineptutide. Some well-meaning team of data scientists might have produced this model originally. But its employment in this manner cannot be assumed to be anything other than malfeasance, except in the face of significant evidence to the contrary.
- bandofthehawk 4y agoI think it's just a simple profit motive. If the insurers can minimize the amount of care while also minimizing the risk of getting sued, why wouldn't they do that? The algorithm/rules can be tweaked to minimize costs while protecting themselves from lawsuits when the algorithm "accidentally" drops coverage for someone who still needs it, as described by the examples in the article.
- nerdponx 4y agoThat sounds like malfeasance to me!