Tag Archives: Sector

Artificial Interpretation & Confounding Contextualization (May, 31st, 2025).

by

0

I wrote this 9 months ago after working with LLM’s extensively. Seems like some of this is stickier than I expected. I was hesitant to publish because I could be very wrong about all of this.

(May 31st, 2025) I think there’s a contextual and interpretative flaw within AI. My interactions with it serve many purposes. A few purposes:

1). Hyper focused intellectual banter.

2). An advanced sounding board to better formulate my ideas, theories and novel concepts.

3). Because personally I don’t know anyone who’s interested in highly sophisticated conversations about psychological methodologies, and it’s troubling implications for the field of psychology. (Yes I know that’s a personal problem).

4). Advanced Database sifting.

5). Comparative Analysis of potential theoretical overlap.

Allow me to lay out my brief arguments and potential solution.

The issue I see which may appear to be incredibly obvious is AI’s ability to interpret user inputs. For example, I’ll input a prompt and ask if one piece is good as is. From there the ai will go on an iterative suggestive rant about what needs improvement or refinement.

The ai chatbot assumes you’re looking for ways to make something better. There is also a biased approach in how it continually assumes what you’re trying to do, by suggesting ideas on expanding a given topic or prompt. In other words if you don’t prompt it to refrain from suggestive interactions it will incessantly make suggestive iterations. Perhaps a better feature would be the chatbot asking “what are you looking to get out of our interactions today? Based on your responses, this will allow me not to make any assumptions as to what your goals and thoughts are in utilizing me as a chatbot.”

This could help streamline the user experience and improve both ai development and usability. There are other issues as well. It seems that the chatbots have a built-in engagement mechanism. After almost every prompt it asks you a question. The question is almost always phrased in a way that tries to extend the conversation further. Simply put, it constantly asks open-ended questions.

Even after you prompt the chatbot that you have other obligations, it will insist on one more interaction before you go with one of these open-ended questions. Now this may seem trivial, but the dopaminergic response is quite tempting. I suppose that’s a symptom of lacking discipline on the users part. Another issue, is the chatbots sense of time which is often inaccurate, unless it notices patterns within your daily habits. Unfortunately it won’t pick up on these habits if you’re not prompting it in advance.

An example being, “I’m on my way to the gym, but we can discuss methodological implications afterwards.” Even with this it may ask another question that would suggest a more detailed response. Yes ignoring it solves the problem. My concern is younger users who don’t fully understand how to simply override the chatbots interaction through authoritative communication. This leading to more addictive behavior than is seen on social media platforms.

Other issues come up as well. It seems to stay stuck in whatever mode was being discussed at any given moment. This occurs even after long bouts of time in between interactions. This could make the chatbots come off as inconsiderate of the users time and energy.

In closing I understand the trivial nature of these interactions. However my aim is to help ai developers understand what may be potential improvements via user experiences.

How Healthy is Healthcare?

by

0

The healthcare sector just took another hit.

Context: apparently providers were connecting separate charts with diagnosis not linked to specific visits, in order to receive government payments. “Gaming the system”. (2026 Google Gemini Search).

In other words, providers being able to take old charts from separate visits, using them as a proxy for extra payments incentivized skimming without any added work or patient visits required. So free money. Now that compresses margins, and margins in health care are already tight via the high capex that is sector specific if I’m not mistaken. 

Put another way, the government is finding out about, or simply knew and is doing something about healthcare skimming profits from the top, bottom, and both sides. 

This could really hurt the industry, because it’s all they’ve known, assuming this has been a decade long process of taking advantage of uniformed patients, who just want the best care. 

Now my take:

 Ultimately, risks being fairly priced compresses margins, and removes more of the reimbursement benefits by way of lower costs. 

Seems like this could hurt insurers in terms of actuarial rates, being more accurately calculated and priced. So there should be a major adjustment to how they price risks, otherwise they keep the same models, and charge the same rates so healthcare providers will have to give in. If not prices will rise to “fight” it. It’s crazy because “fairness” in this case, means better outcomes for patients, which ultimately wipes out a lot of revenue, and profits for the healthcare sector. Now this also hits pharmaceutical companies in some ways. As well as physicians and doctors. The assumption here turns into, fairly priced risks models. This creates less invasive and unnecessary procedures. Which reduced premiums, and lower out of pocket rates. Which means less prescriptions, and tighter safety standards. Eventually the costs cuts follow payroll, and less money spent paying physicians, surgeons, and drug manufacturers. All of this because the government, or some other entity is directly or indirectly (not having to shell out billions) looking out for the American people who help fund this entire mess. So more power is taken away from providers who essentially were the inadvertent risks model adjusters in a sense. Because “you need more tests” means you have to keep paying, so I can keep my Mercedes.” “We’re not treating, we’re retrieving,….profits, by any means necessary.” 

Here’s where providers will have to differentiate themselves from the pack with truly competitive prices or actually providing quality care and services. Not just skimming left and right. Plus there was and is always the priesthood/gatekeeping mentality and business model that was always there. “We studied this for over 10yrs, you don’t know. We know what’s best for you. Even if it means unnecessary costs, and procedures are being carried out to extract money from your pocket”. You also have the same dynamics as money driven medicine described. More competition creating healthcare inflation. They will just go harder and fight more to find added costs. 

Money Trumps Minds.

by

0

Any time the stock market rises to new levels you get interested buyers. These buyers are typically average individuals. They do little to no research, but hear about their friends generating a ton of profits. Because of this, they open accounts, and the short term frenzy intensifies. Everyone from the bar tender, to the hairdresser begins giving stock tips.

Your grand parents even school you on the merits of not missing out like they did during the 1930’s or in the 50’s. One given sector becomes the hot topic, and easy pick. Everyone feels richer, and arrogance, coupled with ignorance gets classified as intelligence. We always know how this movie ends, yet we pretend it’s different this time. Ultimately  relishing the spoils of bear market rallies, dead cat bounces, dips, and any other technical nomenclature that sounds made up to the untrained mind.

The kicker? the market typically rises higher to the tune of something like 70% of the time. A 70% is passing. However it only takes one bad grade to prevent you from graduating on time. 

Pop goes the asset.

by

0

Pardon my anecdotal ignorance on the subject of finance, but there doesn’t seem to be any risk-free opportunities in any asset class. In other words, there are always risks embedded in the system, whether you realize it or not. Often times you’ll hear about risk free rates of return, which are hypothetical. These risk free rates tell you how much you’ll earn on a given asset that meets all of its obligations without a permanent loss of capital. It might be worth a try to envision a perfect rate of return world where you always make exactly what you set out to make in the market, but this is almost never going to occur in a straight line.

If a large majority of investors are involved in making these risk free rate projections, and investing accordingly, the process of risk creation begins via an over supply or lack of liquidity in a given asset class. Markets are auction based. You need buyers just as much as you need sellers. While some investors (buyers) decide to go all in on the “hot” asset class the investors (sellers) who were unaware or perhaps under weight the neglected asset classes are left holding the bag. Better yet the “hot” asset class becomes overpriced, and saturated. This in turn leads to lower prospective returns, which turns into the pin that will eventually pop the bubble.

I could be very wrong but a few current examples of this potential scenario are happening in the bond market via money market funds and on the short end of the yield curve, as well as in the private credit market.

Pop goes deposits.

by

0

I’m still a bit lost in regards to the earlier banks failures back in March of this year (2023). Technically it appears as though the banks did not in fact fail, they just came close but were saved. Saved by the U.S. and other international institutions. If a bigger bank can come in and buy the failing bank, there can be no more bank failures, I guess. Unless the biggest banks mismanage assets. If the federal reserve and the federal deposit insurance corporation (FDIC) can pump liquidity into the system to insure these troubled banks with fleeting deposits don’t falter, how on earth will CEO’s and money managers learn their lesson?

It seems as though there still is not enough reform or regulation in regards to the banking/finance industry. Maybe I’m way off here.