3 ms·

Your personal insurance isn't, but once the tech is perfected to operate on the ones that are, there is zero reason to assume it won't also be deployed to yours

Your personal insurance isn't, but once the tech is perfected to operate on the ones that are, there is zero reason to assume it won't also be deployed to yours. Progressive is one company that insures 27 million drivers. If they deployed this tech to all of them and it earned them a paltry $2 more annually per driver, that's $54 million in extra revenue. And any company that dares not do it once it's widely adopted will have shareholders screaming at them to implement it.

renewiltord 2y ago
Sure, but that’s fine by me. Shareholders are your fellow policyholders in a mutual insurance company. The high risk people can go start their own mutual insurance.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    Sure but mutual insurance requires a large uncorrelated pool. If those guys don’t like me I’ll have to find those who do (who will be half more risky than me and half less, but I can always take higher risk and insure with the more risky guys) and if I can’t, I’m just too risky and I’ll have to self insure.
  - euroderf 2y ago
    > Once they've chewed up everyone who's easier than you, they're not going to spare you because you licked the boot up to that point. First they came for the cheeseburger eaters and the cardboard box lifters...
  - gruez 2y ago
    So far as I can tell in the case of the guy who was dropped for "lifting cardboard boxes", was engaging in insurance fraud. He's claiming that he has a certain condition, but the insurance company found evidence that contradicts this (ie. him lifting cardboard boxes). I'm baffled why the insurance company catching this constitutes being "exploited", and why you think people who oppose this behavior are "boot lickers". Do you think insurance companies are some sort of money printing machine? Their payouts ultimately come from policyholders, including yourself. You should be against any sort of insurance fraud, because they harm policyholders indirectly.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      > I'm baffled why the insurance company catching this constitutes being "exploited", and why you think people who oppose this behavior are "boot lickers". Insurance fraud has been a part of the insurance industry and priced-in to plans since insurance became a thing. Somehow, despite insurance fraud being far easier to perform in days gone, the insurance industry has persisted and remained not only viable, but highly profitable. So how is this exploitation, you ask? Because of power imbalance. Will AI be deployed to ensure that insurance companies are paying out on valid, correct claims, on-time and to the correct amounts? Will AI be deployed to ensure that insurance rates are fairly priced among people of different socioeconomic backgrounds? Or will it solely be in the interest of the corporation, and not to potentially undermine that interest, what the insured people who have to fight every damn month to get things covered might call, "what they're fucking paying for?" Or, perhaps, do you think there's even a snowballs' chance in hell, that the reduction of insurance fraud even further which has been an ongoing process for years, will actually mean lower premiums for customers? Hasn't happened yet, so I kind of doubt it. Or, to put it more succinctly: is AI, the expensive technology that's only really available to large corporations, going to be used to fuck over both parties of this, equally, so that both are now doing business more fairly? Or is it going to be deployed as all previous technological advancements have: which is to say, as tools for corporations to fuck over consumers? I have a strong feeling it will be the latter.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >Somehow, despite insurance fraud being far easier to perform in days gone, the insurance industry has persisted and remained not only viable, but highly profitable. This line of argument makes as much sense as "cars were deathtraps in the 60s, yet they still sold like gangbusters and cities were built around them, why should we make them safer?". Insurance fraud being endemic in the past doesn't mean we should accept insurance fraud today. >Or, to put it more succinctly: is AI, the expensive technology that's only really available to large corporations, going to be used to fuck over both parties of this, equally, so that both are now doing business more fairly? Or is it going to be deployed as all previous technological advancements have: which is to say, as tools for corporations to fuck over consumers? >I have a strong feeling it will be the latter. 1. Your claim that AI will be "tools for corporations to fuck over consumers" isn't self evident. Mind explaining why? Technologies like AI are inevitably going to cause false positives. Where do you think is the line between "fuck over consumers" and "helping consumers by fighting fraud"? 2. If you think corporations are just itching to fuck over consumers, what makes you think that they need AI to do that?

renewiltord 2y ago

Sure, but that’s fine by me. Shareholders are your fellow policyholders in a mutual insurance company. The high risk people can go start their own mutual insurance.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
[flagged]
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Sure but mutual insurance requires a large uncorrelated pool. If those guys don’t like me I’ll have to find those who do (who will be half more risky than me and half less, but I can always take higher risk and insure with the more risky guys) and if I can’t, I’m just too risky and I’ll have to self insure.
- euroderf 2y ago
  > Once they've chewed up everyone who's easier than you, they're not going to spare you because you licked the boot up to that point. First they came for the cheeseburger eaters and the cardboard box lifters...
- gruez 2y ago
  So far as I can tell in the case of the guy who was dropped for "lifting cardboard boxes", was engaging in insurance fraud. He's claiming that he has a certain condition, but the insurance company found evidence that contradicts this (ie. him lifting cardboard boxes). I'm baffled why the insurance company catching this constitutes being "exploited", and why you think people who oppose this behavior are "boot lickers". Do you think insurance companies are some sort of money printing machine? Their payouts ultimately come from policyholders, including yourself. You should be against any sort of insurance fraud, because they harm policyholders indirectly.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > I'm baffled why the insurance company catching this constitutes being "exploited", and why you think people who oppose this behavior are "boot lickers". Insurance fraud has been a part of the insurance industry and priced-in to plans since insurance became a thing. Somehow, despite insurance fraud being far easier to perform in days gone, the insurance industry has persisted and remained not only viable, but highly profitable. So how is this exploitation, you ask? Because of power imbalance. Will AI be deployed to ensure that insurance companies are paying out on valid, correct claims, on-time and to the correct amounts? Will AI be deployed to ensure that insurance rates are fairly priced among people of different socioeconomic backgrounds? Or will it solely be in the interest of the corporation, and not to potentially undermine that interest, what the insured people who have to fight every damn month to get things covered might call, "what they're fucking paying for?" Or, perhaps, do you think there's even a snowballs' chance in hell, that the reduction of insurance fraud even further which has been an ongoing process for years, will actually mean lower premiums for customers? Hasn't happened yet, so I kind of doubt it. Or, to put it more succinctly: is AI, the expensive technology that's only really available to large corporations, going to be used to fuck over both parties of this, equally, so that both are now doing business more fairly? Or is it going to be deployed as all previous technological advancements have: which is to say, as tools for corporations to fuck over consumers? I have a strong feeling it will be the latter.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Somehow, despite insurance fraud being far easier to perform in days gone, the insurance industry has persisted and remained not only viable, but highly profitable. This line of argument makes as much sense as "cars were deathtraps in the 60s, yet they still sold like gangbusters and cities were built around them, why should we make them safer?". Insurance fraud being endemic in the past doesn't mean we should accept insurance fraud today. >Or, to put it more succinctly: is AI, the expensive technology that's only really available to large corporations, going to be used to fuck over both parties of this, equally, so that both are now doing business more fairly? Or is it going to be deployed as all previous technological advancements have: which is to say, as tools for corporations to fuck over consumers? >I have a strong feeling it will be the latter. 1. Your claim that AI will be "tools for corporations to fuck over consumers" isn't self evident. Mind explaining why? Technologies like AI are inevitably going to cause false positives. Where do you think is the line between "fuck over consumers" and "helping consumers by fighting fraud"? 2. If you think corporations are just itching to fuck over consumers, what makes you think that they need AI to do that?