Dark responses to health insurance CEO murder

Eric said:
We are starting to see a movement in the right direction for a change. Top of the front page of Reddit right now.

a4goylbpna8e1.jpeg
Click to expand...

As long as this applies to the ones on the left as well........... Or is this just a Musk thing?
 
Herdfan said:
As long as this applies to the ones on the left as well........... Or is this just a Musk thing?
Click to expand...
Funny thing is Republicans don’t like getting fucked over by billionaires as they get claims denied, too. It’s much more than just Musk and transcends party lines. Going to have to try a different approach from your “but what about so and so” on this one buddy.
 
WTELF​

gizmodo.com

UnitedHealth Gets Luigi Mangione T-Shirt Pulled With Copyright Complaint

"I've unfortunately had a lot of experience navigating the healthcare industry," the designer told Gizmodo.
gizmodo.com gizmodo.com

UHC seems to be claiming that they own or control copyright on images of Luigi. Based on, uh, something. That "we have the resources to just tie you up in court till you go broke, sucks to be you", I guess.

This is the contested image:
luigine-mangione-heart-design-t-shirt.jpg
 
Like it or not this man has become the face of the resistance.

r283ji54es8e1.jpeg
 
"Secret Santa" gave me a forest green Woolrich hoodie that is disturbingly similar to Luigi's. I am considering getting a tan backpack to go with it, to see if I get reactions. Or arrested.
 
Yoused said:
"Secret Santa" gave me a forest green Woolrich hoodie that is disturbingly similar to Luigi's. I am considering getting a tan backpack to go with it, to see if I get reactions. Or arrested.
Click to expand...

The backpack is a peak design v1. They don’t make them anymore, but the v2 is pretty close.
 
Talking of equipment, as previously mentioned, a lot of experts on TV were wrong about the weapon.
What was apparently used was a Glock 19 upper on a 3D-printed receiver with a 3D-printed silencer, which was lacking a booster, which is why the assailant had to rack the slide manually, because the recoil was too low to properly extract the fired casing.

 
Not sure what the scale should be. People's lives are razed to rubble because insurance companies decide we'll take your money and give you nothing for it. In some ways, that is worse than murder. At least Luigi saw the person he was killing – Brian (and his cohorts) killed and robbed people who were just numbers on a ledger, which is much more sanitary and detestable.
 
"I haven't proven to them that caring for her in the hospital was "medically necessary".

This is going to worse and worse, since it will be quite "efficient" to replace the decision making to an AI, who has, e.g., decided the best response to your mom telling you its time to shut off the TV is to kill her.

Profit and medicine are a very bad combination.
 
cbum said:
"I haven't proven to them that caring for her in the hospital was "medically necessary".

This is going to worse and worse, since it will be quite "efficient" to replace the decision making to an AI, who has, e.g., decided the best response to your mom telling you its time to shut off the TV is to kill her.

Profit and medicine are a very bad combination.
Click to expand...
This. What comes between a doctor and patient should be your care, putting a for profit company in the middle of it is ridiculous. The entire system is broken and if this is what it takes to fix it then I say bring it because the politicians we keep electing are just as culpable as these insurance companies. Feels like we need to burn the entire thing to the ground and rebuild something for the people and by the people.
 
cbum said:
"I haven't proven to them that caring for her in the hospital was "medically necessary".

This is going to worse and worse, since it will be quite "efficient" to replace the decision making to an AI, who has, e.g., decided the best response to your mom telling you its time to shut off the TV is to kill her.
Click to expand...

It seems like we're already at this point if this sort of canned response is showing up for "my patient is dying" inputs. There's been reporting to this effect in the last 18 months: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/h...-used-to-deny-health-insurance-claims-in-bulk

Whether the algorithm is hand-coded, or it's a trained ML model, it's still a computer making the call on if you receive care. And these companies can tune either one to get what they see as the desired result.
 
Nycturne said:
companies can tune either one to get what they see as the desired result.
Click to expand...
Meaning one of our last lines of defense against insane AI decisions is out the window, since all AI-control measures currently on the table rely on companies to "do the right thing".
 
cbum said:
Meaning one of our last lines of defense against insane AI decisions is out the window, since all AI-control measures currently on the table rely on companies to "do the right thing".
Click to expand...

It never was a line of defense, IMO. The problem in my mind isn't that ML will go "Paperclip Maximizer" on us. Maybe it could, but an algorithm that denies 100% of claims would be too suspicious. To me, it's that the trained model by its nature is not an inspectable system. So unless you are willing to trawl through the training data, which these companies will treat as trade secrets, you will never really have a solid chain of accountability. Even if you require that companies produce models that "explain" their "reasoning", that explanation is still part of the training set. So how can you trust the explanation if the training set is tainted/compromised by the company for a specific result?

If anything ML algorithms make it even easier to hide your crimes behind plausible deniability, which is why I don't think they should play any part in critical decisions. But that's been true for a couple decades. We've been using algorithms to continue red-lining, despite it being illegal. This is nothing new.
 
Nycturne said:
ML algorithms make it even easier to hide your crimes behind plausible deniability
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but that is not exactly what I meant. The "line of defense" was the responsible corporate entity + regulatory oversight, not the ML algorithm, and I agree that that was always a very dicey bet.
Expecting companies to "tune" the ML to do the right thing is simply not realistic when profits are at stake, and your point expecting "plausible deniability" instead is very plausible.
 
ML = "I want the money, I am just not interested in actually doing anything to earn it."
 
cbum said:
Totally agree, but that is not exactly what I meant. The "line of defense" was the responsible corporate entity + regulatory oversight, not the ML algorithm, and I agree that that was always a very dicey bet.
Expecting companies to "tune" the ML to do the right thing is simply not realistic when profits are at stake, and your point expecting "plausible deniability" instead is very plausible.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't think it ever was a line of defense. ML just makes oversight even harder than it already is.
 

Similar threads

fooferdoggie
Anger at health insurance prompts public to fund bionic arm for child
Replies
0
Views
39
fooferdoggie
fooferdoggie
Huntn
2021 Health Insurance Open Enrollment Options (US, Non-Political Discussion)
Replies
2
Views
524
Gutwrench
G
Back
Top