151–160 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're incredibly naive if you think AI will be used to pay out claims more fairly instead of being used as a deny-bot.
Why? There are many tasks where AI beats humans. Humans are also prone to bias and fatigue etc. Although I would still agree that there would need to be a mechanism for escalation to a human.
"I wanted to derisk my resume by working somewhere with high signaling." You can take the founder out of a consultancy, but you can't take the consultancy out of the founder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there an ethical responsibility to worrying about your competitor's labor. That would lead to stagnation and it's own sort of ethical issues.
I don't think it's as easy as hand waving it away as "your competitor's labor". Your competitors labor is your community, it's people. I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to that. For the points you brought up, why is stagnation for the purposes of upholding an ethical position a bad thing? And yes, by definition, worrying about ethical responsibility would lead to ethical issues. That's the whole point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's as easy as hand waving it away as "your competitor's labor". Your competitors labor is your community, it's people. I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to that. For the points you brought up, why is stagnation for the purposes of upholding an ethical position a bad thing? And yes, by definition, worrying about ethical responsibility would lead to ethical issues. That's the whole point.
So should we all be farming and collecting berries? Most advancements since have put people out of jobs in "competitors" that didn't adapt. Still the unemployment rate isn't 99.9%. Yet we displaced whole industries many times over the centuries. Obviously people move to better jobs and find other things to do. There's nothing particularly good about sitting on a computer denying people insurance all day, why not have…
However, I believe there's a middle ground and endeavor to find it. Based on your response it doesn't appear as though you believe a middle ground exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? There are many tasks where AI beats humans. Humans are also prone to bias and fatigue etc. Although I would still agree that there would need to be a mechanism for escalation to a human.
Because insurance companies aren't in the business of giving you money. They're in the business of trying not to.
Article is interesting on the whole (I have no experience with "professional" work, and would love for suggestions as to how to be more familiar), but I latched onto this nugget: > Our vision at Meanwhile is to build the world's largest life insurer as measured by customer count, annual premiums sold, and total assets under management. We aim to serve a billion people, using digital money to reach policyholders and a…
>> that the only way to provide dispute resolution and customer service to 1B people with only 100 employees is by depriving them of any chance to interact with a human. Real world evidence supporting your argument: United Health Group is currently embroiled in a class action lawsuit pertaining to using AI to auto-deny health care claims and procedures: The plaintiffs are members who were denied benefit coverage. The…
feature, not bug
working as intended, closing ticket
"I wanted to derisk my resume by working somewhere with high signaling." You can take the founder out of a consultancy, but you can't take the consultancy out of the founder.
Without googling I have no clue what that sentence means: "I wanted to derisk my resume by working somewhere with high signaling."
Very much a symbiotic vs parasitic relationship.