Shane Kerr

@bert_hubert@eupolicy.social @ludicity@mastodon.sprawl.club I was annoyed at an exec who was asked - during and "all hand's meeting" - how we measured the claimed 150% productivity boost from our AI tool. He retorted, "I think it's actually higher," and went on to talk about how awesome AI is, without answering the question. After reading this essay I realize that if he's in a line of work where people are claiming 100× improvement, his response is astoundingly conservative and eminently logical. OMG.

@cwebber Marx said that capitalism requires periodic destruction of capital. Just sayin'

@jeromechoo@masto.ai @seanreilly@mastodon.social That's right. Or like using mTLS (for example when a browser uses a X.509 certificate to authenticate itself to a web server in addition to checking the server's certificate).

@Qbitzerre @parismarx You are correct, although in the case of AI normally we see not being able to explain results as a problem. But for scammy insurance companies, it is a feature.

@gray_witch @parismarx From the fine article: "His family appealed the denial, twice, overturning it on the second appeal after NaviHealth doctors reviewed Tetzloff's medical records. But, after 40 days at the skilled nursing home, UnitedHealth denied coverage again and refused to provide a reason. The family continued trying to appeal the denial, but were unsuccessful." So you can ask for whatever documentation you want, but that doesn't mean that you will get it.

@gray_witch @parismarx I have no idea about the legal implications, so you are probably correct about those. But according to the article the insurance company did not provide any justification for denying the claim. Presumably they were asked. I find it shocking that this would even be possible, but the article seems credible, and health care in the USA is crazy, so I am inclined to believe it.