Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Agents for financial services and insurance

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#121

Post by notahacker »

mikeyouse wrote: post #55
ofjcihen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying your implementation is bad or anything but my visceral reaction to this was “I’m glad I’m not on the other side of that”

In many businesses, the employee is responsible for inputting most of that. If a LLM can get to 95% accuracy and flag exceptions, the employees (and AP team) would actually have less work and bureaucracy. Though we’ve had a few incidents where employees have submitted AI-generated receipts for reimbursement which is another issue..

It's already pretty common for some sort of tool involving some sort of AI to collect receipt data and attempt to categorise them and hook up to your accounts. They also make mistakes, though the advantage of more tractable, less configurable and more limited models is they're unlikely to interpret a prompt as "invent receipts that have never been submitted" or "delete records", as well as trained much more on receipt OCR and less on poetry....

As a business, you've also got to remember that employees are much more likely to complain if the 'agent' or any other form of automation errs by denying their claim or underpaying than the reverse. Depending on the scale of expenses and how likely you are to be audited, the cost of the odd mistake might be more or less than the cost of doing it manually.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#122

Post by dakolli »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #84
dakolli wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;-)

fomo/hype, not revenue. Google's AI business is a profitable business model and training to inference is vertically integrated. Their AI biz did not add 1T to their market cap, despite their much more advantageous position. A 1T valuation for Anthropic makes absolutely no sense.

It also makes no sense to me there are people qualified to participate in these secondary markets who are that stupid, but here we are.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#123

Post by sothatsit »

rubenflamshep wrote: post #36
wxw wrote: post #4

> We’re releasing ten ready-to-run agent templates for the most time-consuming work in financial services The templates being: pitch builder, meeting preparer, earnings reviewer, model builder, market researcher, valuation reviewer, general ledger reconciler, month-end closer, statement auditor, KYC (Know Your Customer) screener. Seems pretty scattershot. Reminds me of GPT Store.

I find all of these .md files released by the labs to be ai generated slop. The only exception being maybe the /simplify command

It still surprises me how effective the /simplify skill is.

I’ve also had some great results with a /reflect skill that asks the agent to look at the work in the broader context of the project. But those are the only two skills I use regularly that aren’t specific to our company, codebase, or tools.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#124

Post by edm0nd »

PyWoody wrote: post #44
bcrosby95 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a startup on an LLM is like building a house on a foundation of quicksand. As the LLM gets better it naturally erodes your moat. It's a completely different dynamic compared to the internet. It's why I'm watching this from the sidelines.

I have a close friend who is trying to build a company entirely on top of Claude. He doesn't know how to program. He can't do basic arithmetic. Yet, the company he's building is a "Data Science AI for the Government" because, according to him, all of the data scientists at NOAA don't know what they're doing. I have given up on trying to get through to him how bad of an idea this is. He's unemployed and has been worki…

Yeah that's the scary part about these coding LLMs.

Before, some idiot would pitch their stupid idea to dozens of local webdev companies and banks and get told dozens of times their idea is straight up stupid and never going to work and they are stupid.

Now these LLMs allows them to bypass all of that advice and create what they want without any input or even knowing how the tech behind it works.

We are so fucked lol

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#125

Post by jeffreyrogers »

codemog wrote: post #113
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a better insurance process look like? Outside of health insurance, which is complicated for a variety of reasons, most insurance is pretty easy to procure. I got an umbrella policy recently and it took about 30 minutes of talking with an agent and answering pretty reasonable questions.

1. A better insurance process is clearly out of the scope of a hn comment, and I have trouble believing you don’t know that too. 2. I’m almost certainly talking about health insurance, made obvious by you even mentioning that. There’s a HN guideline about discussing in good faith. 3. I find it humorous you hand-wave away our inhuman healthcare system as “for a variety of reasons”. 4. I see your career is in hedge fun…

I don't think it's obvious that you were talking about health insurance, which I consider fairly distinct from property, casualty, liability, and life insurance, which are all quite large markets in themselves. The reason I made a distinction is because health insurance is quite different from other lines of insurance because healthcare is federally regulated while other insurance is regulated at the state level.

As mentioned the problems with the US healthcare system are numerous, complex, and interrelated. I don't think they have a simple solution, nor do I think they are insurance problems at their core. For example the cost of drugs in the US vs the rest of the world has very little to do with insurance.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#126

Post by subscribed »

rubenflamshep wrote: post #36
wxw wrote: post #4

> We’re releasing ten ready-to-run agent templates for the most time-consuming work in financial services The templates being: pitch builder, meeting preparer, earnings reviewer, model builder, market researcher, valuation reviewer, general ledger reconciler, month-end closer, statement auditor, KYC (Know Your Customer) screener. Seems pretty scattershot. Reminds me of GPT Store.

I find all of these .md files released by the labs to be ai generated slop. The only exception being maybe the /simplify command

"Claude, build me 50 skills an Account Analyst would find useful, then run them through the agent at maxxxx thinking and ship the top 10 of them"

My money's on that.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#128

Post by deepfriedbits »

tyre wrote: post #98
motbus3 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason they are doing it is because there are regulation for people but not for machines.

This is objectively not true. You can’t get around HIPAA by saying “lol wasn’t me it was an Agent”

Yep. There's no certification needed to create a financial model or close monthly books.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#129

Post by sorieus »

areoform wrote: post #70
tencentshill wrote: post #34

I 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…

Pretty great at what? I work in the insurance industry specifically medicare. All I see is sales people and other managers slopping out AI dashboards off of spreadsheets galore. Not only is it terrible for protecting PHI/PII. It also doesn't do things like RBAC very well either. Now instead of preventing a person from externally sharing a file i have to make sure they didn't egress the file to supabase or some other platform.

Here's some of the horrible things i've seen. Frontend dashboard with PHI/PII deployed via vercel/next because AI told them how to get their site online. Login is hardcoded into the frontend so anyone with inspect can find the password.

Another "fixed" dashboard deployed the same way. This time they added firebase auth so they got sign in with Google added with only logging into our domain. Wait how would they be able to create a token for our domain? They didn't the frontend just blocks domains from calling firebase.auth but firebase doesn't care. So simply calling the function in the console lets me login with any gmail account....

They also where showing me their RBAC with firebase. Again they don't have access to our Orgnization/Directory/Groups. So i wondered how they did this.. wouldn't you guess its a hardcoded list of approved users. You can literally call firebase.auth and sign in anonymously. Again only the frontend checks the email addresses. So now that i have a firebase auth all the backend firebase function just check that you have auth'd. So i can make any request i want to the backend. The frontend simply won't show me the code.

I could go on and on about the stupidity levels I'm facing but I don't feel like crashing out.

All I can say is this tool is only useful if you already know how to correctly implement these things. Does it save me time sure but I have to call it retarded and explain why not to do things. Honestly I feel like claude is good for people who like to gamble. When it gets it right it feels great but I don't want to roll the dice 30 times to get it correct.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#130

Post by Terr_ »

hvb2 wrote: post #82
areoform wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I really wish more people would view these companies with the suspicion they deserve, as they sell the product as safe and comprehensive while refusing/failing to use it the same way themselves.
Post reply on HN