4 ms·

Yes, the asymmetry is how it is designed, but generative AI can turn the tables there. You should be able to sic an AI on the company and go back to watching yo

Yes, the asymmetry is how it is designed, but generative AI can turn the tables there. You should be able to sic an AI on the company and go back to watching your (AI generated) shows on netflix.

DamnYuppie 2y ago
How does this make sense? The insurance company has an overwhelming asymmetric advantage in regards to the data that is used to make such claim decisions and would be used to train such AI agents. Unless of course you are referring to legal proceedings specifically and not the data that would be used in the case.
- jacobsenscott 2y ago
  You overestimate the ability of an insurance company to make use of AI - it will take them years of meetings, internal political maneuvering, technical failures, etc. Individuals can basically start using chatgpt today.
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    They already can reject your appeal based on BS like you didn't fax a form correctly (or more likely, you did but they claim they didn't get it), or they require a peer consult with your doctor and chose a time he wasn't available (on purpose). And don't forget they already use tech to speed up denials - Cigna had one doctor "review" and sign off on 60,000 a month via automation. That's under a minute a case, assuming he worked 24/7. It takes longer than that just to fax in your form. So you submit an appeal via AI, they spend 20 seconds rejecting it, with their tech stack from a few years ago. If they invest in AI it's only getting worse for individuals unless there are new regulations that put the burden of proof on the corps instead of on patients and doctors.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >You overestimate the ability of an insurance company to make use of AI They already do, and it's pretty obvious.
floatrock 2y ago
I have a queasy feeling that's not going to be how this actually pans out. It's clear the people adopting the AI systems are the big co's -- we've been battling half-assed phone navigation agents for a decade now, and more recently chatbots (often with humorous results -- see the "No Backsies" car dealership chatbot). AI always favors the one with more resources. When you have AI's battling AI's, rather than making progress, I suspect it'll actually result in confusion, more delays as tighter roadblocks pop up, and probably some humorous events like the infamous Dominos-vs-Papa-Johns prank call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALnPVybD9X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALnPVybD9X8 but darker because it'll be about cancer treatments instead of pizza prices. The only winners will be data center operators, and the losers will be everyone without access to the AI tools. In an arms race, everyone loses in the long view.
mrmuagi 2y ago
I feel like AI would and has been an edge companies would field better than the average citizen. Even now calling a companies phone line seems to be this weird rigmarole of infuriatingly trying to tell a virtual agent your purpose.
Terr_ 2y ago
Nah, at that point big companies will use their position to impose a "must be communication from a real customer" policy, and they'll implement a terrible "bot detector"... where a high false-positive rate will be a feature to them, not a bug. In other words "suspicious bot activity detected, start over" and "account suspended for security reasons" will become new crappy barriers to claims and appeals.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  My AI has power of attorney.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Evil-genie wish granted: Your AI is now a person that can hold power of attorney... Buuuut you're going to jail for child-slavery.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      I'm conflicted now.
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
But the asymmetry still exists. Which means your AI has to fight a much better trained AI that the company developed because it would rather spend 10 billion on AI than pay out 11 billion in claims, and now you're still screwed.
xtracto 2y ago
The presented idea tangentially touches on what IMO is the main issue with the current system.: The objectives of customer and company are unaligned. Insurance companies fight tooth and nail to avoid paying once incidents happen. And people have to do the same but as you say it's a David vs golliath scenario. I've always wondered why don't we have companies that "equalize" that fight, with some kind of subscription or other revenue model that aligns with the consumer. They could also have armies of lawyers fighting on the side of the claimer.

Yes, the asymmetry is how it is designed, but generative AI can turn the tables there. You should be able to sic an AI on the company and go back to watching your (AI generated) shows on netflix.

DamnYuppie 2y ago

How does this make sense? The insurance company has an overwhelming asymmetric advantage in regards to the data that is used to make such claim decisions and would be used to train such AI agents. Unless of course you are referring to legal proceedings specifically and not the data that would be used in the case.

jacobsenscott 2y ago
You overestimate the ability of an insurance company to make use of AI - it will take them years of meetings, internal political maneuvering, technical failures, etc. Individuals can basically start using chatgpt today.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  They already can reject your appeal based on BS like you didn't fax a form correctly (or more likely, you did but they claim they didn't get it), or they require a peer consult with your doctor and chose a time he wasn't available (on purpose). And don't forget they already use tech to speed up denials - Cigna had one doctor "review" and sign off on 60,000 a month via automation. That's under a minute a case, assuming he worked 24/7. It takes longer than that just to fax in your form. So you submit an appeal via AI, they spend 20 seconds rejecting it, with their tech stack from a few years ago. If they invest in AI it's only getting worse for individuals unless there are new regulations that put the burden of proof on the corps instead of on patients and doctors.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >You overestimate the ability of an insurance company to make use of AI They already do, and it's pretty obvious.

floatrock 2y ago

I have a queasy feeling that's not going to be how this actually pans out. It's clear the people adopting the AI systems are the big co's -- we've been battling half-assed phone navigation agents for a decade now, and more recently chatbots (often with humorous results -- see the "No Backsies" car dealership chatbot). AI always favors the one with more resources. When you have AI's battling AI's, rather than making progress, I suspect it'll actually result in confusion, more delays as tighter roadblocks pop up, and probably some humorous events like the infamous Dominos-vs-Papa-Johns prank call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALnPVybD9X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALnPVybD9X8 but darker because it'll be about cancer treatments instead of pizza prices. The only winners will be data center operators, and the losers will be everyone without access to the AI tools. In an arms race, everyone loses in the long view.

mrmuagi 2y ago

I feel like AI would and has been an edge companies would field better than the average citizen. Even now calling a companies phone line seems to be this weird rigmarole of infuriatingly trying to tell a virtual agent your purpose.

Terr_ 2y ago

Nah, at that point big companies will use their position to impose a "must be communication from a real customer" policy, and they'll implement a terrible "bot detector"... where a high false-positive rate will be a feature to them, not a bug. In other words "suspicious bot activity detected, start over" and "account suspended for security reasons" will become new crappy barriers to claims and appeals.

datavirtue 2y ago
My AI has power of attorney.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Evil-genie wish granted: Your AI is now a person that can hold power of attorney... Buuuut you're going to jail for child-slavery.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    I'm conflicted now.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

But the asymmetry still exists. Which means your AI has to fight a much better trained AI that the company developed because it would rather spend 10 billion on AI than pay out 11 billion in claims, and now you're still screwed.

xtracto 2y ago

The presented idea tangentially touches on what IMO is the main issue with the current system.: The objectives of customer and company are unaligned. Insurance companies fight tooth and nail to avoid paying once incidents happen. And people have to do the same but as you say it's a David vs golliath scenario. I've always wondered why don't we have companies that "equalize" that fight, with some kind of subscription or other revenue model that aligns with the consumer. They could also have armies of lawyers fighting on the side of the claimer.