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

161–170 of 212 posts

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#161

Post by PyWoody »

ecshafer wrote: post #149
PyWoody wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I've tried explaining to him so many times that these are passionate people working their dream jobs. They are not slouches. He never listens and just doubles-down that since they work for the government they do the bare minimum for a paycheck. I'm guessing either Joe Rogan or Elon made this argument at one point and he's taken it as gospel.

Very frustrating.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#162

Post by kiba »

brunoborges wrote: post #86
areoform wrote: post #70

Earlier 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…

Why not the developer write the code, then the AI review the code, and then finally a signoff from another human?

Far too often people think productivity is the point. Maybe the point is developer's understanding of the product IS the product?

You're not engineering black boxes, you're engineering legible boxes.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#163

Post by crowcroft »

motbus3 wrote: post #75
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.

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

Can't wait for Claude to submit fake tax records for me so that I can commit fraud legally.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#165

Post by bix6 »

BowBun wrote: post #150
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 hav…

> 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.

Yes they can? They have infinite more cash to pay off any risk. What do you need personnel for besides sign off if the AI does it right?

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#167

Post by order-matters »

scottyah wrote: post #152
order-matters wrote: post #38

Earlier 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…

The "real humans" doing the tasks being replaced are overworked kids less than 2yrs out of college on an average of 4hrs of sleep at working at 3am. If the AI makes their jobs take half as much time I bet they're a lot more likely to catch errors (and live longer).

at risk of sounding facetious, how exactly do you catch an error in a sum without performing the sum yourself?

How do you verify that all the tariffs are properly allocated to the correct GL code without going through the invoices and checking for each tariff on the list? How do you make sure none were accidentally assigned to other GL codes? All you have is pdfs, you dont know what the AI did or didnt do with the info on the pdf, there are not many use-cases to catch its errors without doing the work yourself.

If anything, it's going to add a step to these "kids" work where they have to use the AI to do the work and then redo 90% of the work anyway just to verify the output and then AI is going to get the credit anyway.

Or the overworked people are going to use AI and not verify it, which means not catching any errors or hallucinations, which apparently is fine because someone claims it's a solved problem for the black box of infinite possibility and inconsistent output.

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#168

Post by [deleted] »

nradov wrote: post #134
deepfriedbits wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

HIPAA doesn't require any certification either. Some organizations voluntarily choose to earn certification from private companies that offer certifications for compliance with HIPAA privacy or administrative simplification rules but this is completely optional.

[deleted]

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#169

Post by jqpabc123 »

Ekaros wrote: post #81
jqpabc123 wrote: post #48

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?

Yes, you can. But expect similar results.

https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-aga...

Re: Agents for financial services and insurance

#170

Post by stubish »

tossandthrow wrote: post #57
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.

I would recommend you to not use these, if you are not willing to absorb the risk. Luckily there is still a significant market for the services.

Some human always gets to be the certified fall guy for non-compliance. Maybe the legal agent can help structure the company so that is an ignorant lower level accountant and not the CFO.

Currently we don't know the risk, so it is kind of hard to absorb.

Post reply on HN