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

141–150 of 212 posts

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#141

Post by KellyCriterion »

dakolli wrote: post #122
KellyCriterion wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do know 2 people participating in secondaries, one of them explicitly with Anthropic shares: I would not consider any of them stupid :-)

And for participating there, there is not "a qualification that allows you to enter", its other metrics.

If Anthropics valuation makes no sense - fair enough - but why is then OAI evaluation of 850b correct?

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#142

Post by bombcar »

suriya-ganesh wrote: post #2

Will the big labs leave anything for external competition? This probably killed a thousand startups in this space. in the early internet you wouldn't see google creating their own news site or facebook building their own animal farm. what happened to platformication of everything?

It's not wise to build a startup that is just a feature of the product that you're building on.

What's even sadder is it can work for way too long.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#143

Post by [deleted] »

alwillis wrote: post #140
intended wrote: post #74

Earlier 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.

If you’re paying out of your nose, you would have forward deployed Anthropic/OpenAI engineers on the premises.

[deleted]

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#144

Post by aydenp »

orochimaaru wrote: post #133
brunoborges wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn’t there a code review agent?

/s?

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#145

Post by 23dsfds »

Lio wrote: post #94

Wow, really going for those white collar jobs. This is going to be an interesting few years.

What will happen is what has happened for the past few years: mostly nothing. People employed, things keep trucking forward.

LLMs do not change the equation all that much: human's ability to imagine is the most scarce resource on the planet and LLMs will not help all that much with it.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#146

Post by [deleted] »

suriya-ganesh wrote: post #95
ambicapter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the early internet you wouldn't see google creating their own news site Google News was definitely a thing (and actually still exists).

it's been a things since 2002. but it's a news aggregator not directly competing with newyork times

[deleted]

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#148

Post by zx8080 »

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.

> properly handling

Why, they can sell user data to other brokers. Experts indeed! But not in insurance or finance, of course.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#149

Post by ecshafer »

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…

Scientists are pretty solid overall for the Government. Lots of Phds that decide to take the steady reliable income and solid benefits over the risk of Academia for a few post docs hoping for a professor job.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#150

Post by BowBun »

suriya-ganesh wrote: post #2

Will the big labs leave anything for external competition? This probably killed a thousand startups in this space. in the early internet you wouldn't see google creating their own news site or facebook building their own animal farm. what happened to platformication of everything?

I work in a space where one could imagine a Claude replacing our product.

I think someone stated it clearly - they can't take on these kinds of businesses until they build out the risk side and the personnel, all of which is a human problem not a tech one. A lot of processes still require physical steps and backstops because it's not possible to source all the data needed to act on it in the first place. Then you have audits and reconciliations, a bunch of strict workflow rules and atomicity to reach levels of software that bigger financial institutions would accept.

My gut reaction to stuff like this is a mix of "oh shit, they could take over my company" and "they're the next script kiddy that thinks software is anywhere near a majority of the work in some software spaces".

Post reply on HN