Insurance CEO Murder Raises Tough Questions for Industry (youtube.com)
Lots of people talking about the killing of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare this week.
‘Straight up hatred towards the company.’ ‘The way a lot of them make money is by reducing the expenditures for health care insurance.’ Not specific to UnitedHealthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. People who work in these companies are probably assessing their morality and security. ‘Insurance companies put up hurdles to make sure people are getting the appropriate care and only the care that they need. And sometimes the argument is that they’re going too far.' ‘There was a huge outrage about how UnitedHealth was using AritificialIntelligence to turn down insurance requests, and made people and doctors jump through hoops over and over in order to get access to things that many would say should be covered.’
#AI
Isn't it obvious that a person should be responsible for any decision, whether assessing and deciding on a claim, or just using a tool (AI program)? So that if a worker denies a claim, they are answerable, and if a manager implements an AI program, they are answerable for the actions they carry out using this tool? Or does society allow that simply using a computer program means any harms are not linked to the person who decided to implement or did implement that tool? It doesn't seem that beurocrats and CEOs, who naturally avoid any decision-making claims, would always prefer any tool that removes legal or socially-perceived agency, and would result in interactions for customers and clients that are of the lowest quality and most (superficially politely) combative, completely non-serious.