Accuracy concerns
Of course, the insurance genie needs to be accurate for all this to work. So, is an LLM, or even AI, generally, reliable? This concern is understandable. However, it is crucial to compare AI not to a standard of perfection but to human performance, which, while skilled, has flaws. We simply ask humans to be as efficient as possible, and the same standard should apply to an LLM. That said, we can establish a rigorous framework that ensures accuracy and precision.
To achieve this, robust guardrails are essential, not just for the sake of specificity and quality in data input, but also to ensure that LLMs serve as diligent assistants rather than autonomous decision-makers. By focusing on the specificity in data input, we minimize the risk of erroneous outputs, guiding the system towards more accurate analyses applicable to the task at hand. Crucially, these guardrails involve human oversight at critical decision points, ensuring that the LLM flags potential issues or opportunities for a human expert to review. This collaboration prevents the system from veering into irrelevant territories or making unfounded assumptions, integrating the nuanced judgment of insurance professionals with the computational efficiency of AI.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, unlike human processes (where adapting to feedback can be slower and more complex), we can adjust the LLM to new data, feedback, or strategic directions. It ensures that their outputs remain precise and valuable over time.