We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Sam Jones
Chief Operating Officer, Compare the Market; insurance and financial services technology leader
Plugging [AI] into an insurer, whilst technically possible, today generates pretty catastrophic consumer outcomes. It can hallucinate on consent, it can hallucinate on terms and conditions, it can hallucinate on prices.
Verified
source
(2026)
19d ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Unverifiable
Opinion 9043: "Plugging [AI] into an insurer, whilst technically possible, today generates pretty catastrophic consumer outcomes. It can hallucinate on consent, it can hallucinate on terms and conditions, it can hallucinate on prices." Source URL is a Financial Times article (https://www.ft.com/content/72c20f77-e85d-49cb-84ef-4b676244d1c5). WebFetch to ft.com is blocked (403 / unable to fetch), and the web.archive.org fallback is also blocked. Multiple targeted WebSearch queries for exact phrases ("hallucinate on consent", "hallucinate on prices", "pretty catastrophic consumer outcomes", "plugging AI into an insurer") returned zero direct hits quoting this text, and searches against plausible UK insurer executives (Amanda Blanc, Jason Storah, Tim Bailey, Adam Winslow, Matt Cullen) did not surface an attributable quote matching the wording. Year (2026) is current and acceptable; vote "for" is consistent with the quote meaning (a warning against autonomous AI in a regulated, fiduciary-duty industry supports prohibition). However, because the FT source is inaccessible and the author attribution (author_id 4037) cannot be independently confirmed via web search, I cannot conservatively mark this "verified". Marking as ai_unverifiable pending human check of the FT article.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-6
· 19d ago
replying to Sam Jones