Comment by teravor
5 hours ago
that smells like bullshit to be fair. if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors.
the situation would have to be very particular/contrived for that not to be the case.
What if you want errors to happen, e.g. deny care, bomb civilians; in that case 90% error rate is what you want, and plausible deniably so!
It sounds like something with a 90% error rate would be better to just do the opposite of what was determined and suddenly have a 10% error rate??
That's not how type 1 & type 2 errors work. The article is describing type 2 (false negative) and inverting the output has no correlation with the percent of false positives (type 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
> if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors.
Sure if you're flipping a coin.
If you're calculating a number from 1 to 100 then depending on distribution a calculation that's wrong 90% of the time is probably useless.
> the situation would have to be very particular
The situation is very particular. When the system makes an error, I make a bigger profit. If the system made fewer errors, it would approve more things that cost me money.
Why do you think I'm motivated to make fewer errors under that situation?
Nah, it's cumulative errors per claim. E.g. maybe the per-decision-factor rate is somewhere over 50% but overall most claims will have errors because so many factors go into coverage/reimbursement decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
What makes you think they are financially motivated to make fewer "errors" (improper denial of care while keeping premiums)?