*Run on sentence alert*
As soon as the executives in the Insurance Journal article linked below realize that they can slash operating expenses, and ultimately increase their salaries, bonus’, and stock options by laying you/us/everyone off simply by implementing a slipshod AI program that ultimately costs the companies billions of dollars in losses, AND even if they get themselves fired but realize they have an even bigger Golden Parachute, they’ll do it.
By their self-serving, “what’s in it for me” nature, they’ll feel almost compelled to replace humans with AI.
So an advisory firm who specializes in areas of IT implementation, including AI, is talking about all the potential out there, but they don’t mention the heavy cost of implementation. Insurance companies are notorious for not updating systems and running old legacy systems because they don’t want to spend the money and yet they should now pour money into new tech that “should make things more efficient” but has no proven track record or actually delivering cost savings? Not against growth or change, but am old enough to have seen the roll out of the next big thing that really didn’t deliver what promised as well as its own new set of problems and issues.
Not one mention of accuracy. From what I have seen so far this is what is holding IA back, it is not accurate, and not just from an insurance standpoint. IA can only be as good / accurate as the programmers that develop it and the information it contains and/or takes in.
Shocking…been waiting for 10 years for AI to take all our jobs in the agency world.
*Run on sentence alert*
As soon as the executives in the Insurance Journal article linked below realize that they can slash operating expenses, and ultimately increase their salaries, bonus’, and stock options by laying you/us/everyone off simply by implementing a slipshod AI program that ultimately costs the companies billions of dollars in losses, AND even if they get themselves fired but realize they have an even bigger Golden Parachute, they’ll do it.
By their self-serving, “what’s in it for me” nature, they’ll feel almost compelled to replace humans with AI.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2023/10/11/743595.htm
So an advisory firm who specializes in areas of IT implementation, including AI, is talking about all the potential out there, but they don’t mention the heavy cost of implementation. Insurance companies are notorious for not updating systems and running old legacy systems because they don’t want to spend the money and yet they should now pour money into new tech that “should make things more efficient” but has no proven track record or actually delivering cost savings? Not against growth or change, but am old enough to have seen the roll out of the next big thing that really didn’t deliver what promised as well as its own new set of problems and issues.
Not one mention of accuracy. From what I have seen so far this is what is holding IA back, it is not accurate, and not just from an insurance standpoint. IA can only be as good / accurate as the programmers that develop it and the information it contains and/or takes in.