AI and finance --- what could possibly go wrong? Better Call Saul when (not if) it does.
Well at that point you can use AI as legal help, right?
Agents for financial services and insurance
81–90 of 212 posts
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and you won't get human support or Claude – even if you are an enterprise paying out of your nose. And there's 0 redressal unless you go viral on social media. Sadly this sounds like par for the course when it comes to tech. Too many messages and requests for help depend on knowing someone in the right slack groups.
Which is very confusing to me. If you have groundbreaking AI, you can offer groundbreaking support at scale.
You wouldn't build a chat bot for that, imagine how easy it is to make that thing go off the rails and allow anyone to reactivate their account. Really, you can't trust it to do any business function...
At least, that's really the message this sends in my opinion
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#83Everything is going to be slop and you're going like it. Is the plan to have an LLM do everything? And do it worse? "Oh yeah my Claude didn't agree with the pitch from their Claude" The goal of current tech is to make humanity a gerbil running on a Claude wheel
At that point what even is the point of doing anything at all? Like, it’s less than useless.
That is what people like Thiel actually believe, that humanity is just a cradle to bring about a machine god.
I don't necessarily disagree with that but doing it through LinkedIn slop companies? Come on man you know better than that
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude's actually pretty great at this! I actually used to use Claude A LOT to answer interesting questions (which I'll be writing up on!) More generally, Claude is palpably different from most other agents. I'd recommend these models – especially Opus – without qualifications. But there's a process risk here based on their current practises. I'm hoping those practises change so that I can recommend Claude to everyon…
They aren't even close to a 1T company, they're valued at <400bb and that's at like a 20x-30x multiple. They can probably raise money at a higher valuation but its literally just value based on hype, not revenue.
Check the secondaries market ;-)
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and you won't get human support or Claude – even if you are an enterprise paying out of your nose. And there's 0 redressal unless you go viral on social media. Sadly this sounds like par for the course when it comes to tech. Too many messages and requests for help depend on knowing someone in the right slack groups.
Which is very confusing to me. If you have groundbreaking AI, you can offer groundbreaking support at scale.
> If you have groundbreaking AI, you can offer groundbreaking support at scale
You're a funny one aren't you...
Meet "Fin" Anthropic's "where support questions go to die" so-called-support bot, created by Intercom but powered by Anthropic.
Maybe it's an internal in-joke in the Anthropic offices ... "Fin" in french means "End".
I don't know anyone who has had a positive experience with "Fin" .... or ever spoken to a human at Anthropic support for that matter, even if you ask "Fin" to escalate.
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#86I don't trust these AI-only companies to be overnight experts in properly handling medical, financial and insurance data. They have no business providing these tools, unless they want to take all the risk too.
Claude's actually pretty great at this! I actually used to use Claude A LOT to answer interesting questions (which I'll be writing up on!) More generally, Claude is palpably different from most other agents. I'd recommend these models – especially Opus – without qualifications. But there's a process risk here based on their current practises. I'm hoping those practises change so that I can recommend Claude to everyon…
Before AI, shipping code to production used to be a two-person task: one writes the code, another one reviews the code. Now with AI writing the code, the developer that was supposed to write the code, only has to review it. And this is because they are responsible for the code they ship.
Code review has become unbearable because before AI, developers were reviewing code as they went writing it in the first place. Granted, never perfect and why a second person reviewing code was (is?) a best practice. But effectively there was always some level of code review happening as developers wrote code.
I fear it is way more boring to review financial and medical documents completely written by AI than it is to write (and at the same time review) by yourself. And way more dangerous to ship mistakes than in most software.
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
the details are key here. there is plenty of automatable financial work, sure, but also when it comes to reporting finances/costs (formally or informally) and having a real human being be accountable for them, you REALLY need to trust that nothing is hallucinated. Any idea how they ensure this doesnt happen? As in, how can a user verify that the model did not touch any of the numbers and that it only built pipelines…
To be honest I am having a hard time remembering the last time a LLM hallucinated in our pipelines. Make mistakes, sure but not make things up. For a daily recon process this is a solved problem imo.
Curious!
Could you elaborate a little bit on your pipeline as we are currently looking to solve this for our internal processes in which we have to deal with lots of financial information from outside, containing mass of numbers, like annual reports, bank statements, balance sheets etc.
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#88I stopped reading at paragraph one:
"ready-to-run agent templates for the most time-consuming work in financial services: building pitchbooks, screening KYC files, and closing the books at month-end"
Ok, maybe you can squeeze a vaguely passable pitchbook out of Claude.
But screening KYC files or closing books at month-end ?
"I'll have some of what they're smoking" as the cool kids say.
No regulator or tax office on this planet is going to accept the "but Claude said it was ok" excuse.
The only people who are going to profit out of this are Anthropic, Lawyers and Governments (through increased fines).
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude's actually pretty great at this! I actually used to use Claude A LOT to answer interesting questions (which I'll be writing up on!) More generally, Claude is palpably different from most other agents. I'd recommend these models – especially Opus – without qualifications. But there's a process risk here based on their current practises. I'm hoping those practises change so that I can recommend Claude to everyon…
Before AI, shipping code to production used to be a two-person task: one writes the code, another one reviews the code. Now with AI writing the code, the developer that was supposed to write the code, only has to review it. And this is because they are responsible for the code they ship. Code review has become unbearable because before AI, developers were reviewing code as they went writing it in the first place. Gra…
I am/was writing up an interesting hypothesis with Claude's help. But I redid the most important parts of the data pipeline manually. As in went in and cmd-c + cmd-v'ed the data by hand to create a reference, and I'm randomly spot checking 33% of the larger records.
The analysis itself; I'm doing it by hand.
Re: Agents for financial services and insurance
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It sounds exactly like the design I would hope for. It automates what I'm going to do already without needing to wait. And it allows you to bypass it entirely and just revert to the manual process (along with waiting).
That all sounds reasonable until you realize that the same logic is how we ended up with customer support systems that try to walk you through a phone tree and if you are lucky, you will be able to press 0 to speak to a human without answering a bunch of questions first and being referred to the online help articles. Do you enjoy using any of those systems? Do you want the world to be that way?
Regarding customer support on phone:
I usually have lock with just waiting and not responding to the tel bot, very often you are routed to a human at the end :-D