Hacker News Reader

I feel like there's an argument to be made for having an actual human monitoring large transactions. If you're trying to take out a $600,000 mortgage at 3 AM on a Sunday, that probably shouldn't go through, or at the very least have some human verification. Humans tend to work 9-5 Monday to Friday

View on HN

Surely anomaly detection is better done by a machine?

I guess there's a certain level of human "intuition" about these things but is this not what most banks anti-fraud systems do already?

I imagine the problem with this is it becomes a game-able system if it's purely automated. Sort of like the stereotype in Law and Order where they always pay hitmen $9,999 because "the IRS only monitors transfers over 10k."

On the other hand, maybe this is a kind of perverse benefit of opaque ML systems.

I think its game-able automated or not. Fraud exists today and is playing on these exact systems.

> Surely anomaly detection is better done by a machine?

I've worked with machines. I don't think this is a good idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com