| ▲ | teravor a day ago | |||||||||||||
that smells like bullshit to be fair. if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. the situation would have to be very particular/contrived for that not to be the case. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | flossly a day ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
What if you want errors to happen, e.g. deny care, bomb civilians; in that case 90% error rate is what you want, and plausible deniably so! | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | degamad a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> the situation would have to be very particular The situation is very particular. When the system makes an error, I make a bigger profit. If the system made fewer errors, it would approve more things that cost me money. Why do you think I'm motivated to make fewer errors under that situation? | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | benlivengood a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Nah, it's cumulative errors per claim. E.g. maybe the per-decision-factor rate is somewhere over 50% but overall most claims will have errors because so many factors go into coverage/reimbursement decisions. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. Sure if you're flipping a coin. If you're calculating a number from 1 to 100 then depending on distribution a calculation that's wrong 90% of the time is probably useless. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | dylan604 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
It sounds like something with a 90% error rate would be better to just do the opposite of what was determined and suddenly have a 10% error rate?? | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | j4yav 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
I can easily build you a system that will guess the price of a stock tomorrow wrong at least 90% of the time. Even 100% wrong if you'd like. How would you use that to make fewer errors in some other system? | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
What makes you think they are financially motivated to make fewer "errors" (improper denial of care while keeping premiums)? | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. member the three words "delay, deny, depose"? Insurances - and not just in the US, Germany has similarly bad stuff going on - aren't making a profit if they just blindly accept claims. It is much more profitable to deny with a vague "AI" system (or a blanket automated deny) first, and only have a first look with an actual human agent at it when the customer complains or files a lawsuit. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||