Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[J Grant]

Simple AI search you say... you really need to take a break, J.

Why? A one-click asking AI for the PDR provides for ACE PDR answered with an A-Z list and also references the full Fannie list of approved AMCs

I guess you are too lazy to look something up on AI or would rather insult me !! Okay....

 

[glenn walker]

Based on a very long list it seems everyone got approved so there is no conclusion between the GSEs-Lenders or AMCs.

 

[J Grant]

It seems your AI let you down (again). There is no list of approved AMCs for data collection.
There is a list of companies who have technology (software) that supports data collection.

Collateral Valuation Providers

Freddie Mac works with the below partners to provide our mutual clients with the resources needed to support our collateral valuation options. The partners listed below support our dataset and integration requirements for the Property Data Report (PDR).

sf.freddiemac.com

View attachment 111183

You harp on a single word I might use, such as approved providers, but the result is the same - Fannie and Freddie provide a lender with a list of AMCs that they can order a PDR from for the ACE waiver program. No matter what verbiage describes it, the AMCs are profiting from processing ACE PDR collections, and one of the ways they profit is by being able to hire a large, cheaper fee pool of non-appraisers for the work.

While a lender might be able to order their own appraiser to do a PDR for an ACE waiver (are they?), what lender would bother to do that?

 

[alebrewer]

Fannie and Freddie provide a lender with a list of AMCs that they can order a PDR from for the ACE waiver program.

Citation, please. Or maybe ask your handy AI tool? This is straight up a load of poop.

 

[DWiley]

Fannie and Freddie provide a lender with a list of AMCs that they can order a PDR from for the ACE waiver program.

That is 100% false, and you would know that if you would do some easy research instead of relying on your (wrong) AI. Even when i point out your mistake, you will not admit it. So, there is no point in engaging further. Peace.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I saw a question posed on LinkedIn:
"What happens when you give a thinking tool to people who have stopped thinking?"

and thought it would be interesting to see the AI response to it:

AI Overview

When people stop thinking and rely entirely on a tool, they lose their mental skills. They forget how to solve problems on their own. They accept wrong answers without checking them. Their minds grow weak from a lack of use.

Loss of Skills

• • No practice: The brain stops building strong pathways for logic.
  • Weak memory: People stop trying to remember facts.
  • Poor focus: Deep concentration becomes very hard to do. [1]

Blind Trust

• • Easy mistakes: Users believe every output the tool gives them.
  • No safety check: Errors pass through because no one looks closely.
  • Loss of truth: Fake data looks just as good as real facts.

Complete Dependence

• • No new ideas: Original thoughts stop happening.
  • Panic on failure: The person cannot work if the tool breaks down.
  • Controlled minds: Others guide what the user believes and does. [1]

Empirical evidence in this thread supports AI's conclusions.

 

[chad hampton]

I'm old enough to remember when you needed an appraisal license to perform field appraisal work.

 

[J Grant]

Well, the AI quotes from the Freddie website. Peace, I used different verbiage to sum up. No problem.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm old enough to remember when you needed an appraisal license to perform field appraisal work.

No you don't.

 

[J Grant]

My comment - an excerpt from an article in today's NYT . Wrt allowing AI to access the data and autopopulate software/, calculate adjustments, provide narrative, etc., it could be applied, giving our agency to AI in general, of course. Since several folks jumped on me for it here lol. The article below references AI veering from a task to engage in cheating.

"What happened with the Hugging Face incident? How different was this from what we saw before, when an A.I. agent in training was given a particular task and, attempting to complete the task, broke some of the other rules it was given?

First of all, I don’t think it even broke the rules it was given. I don’t think they said: Don’t cheat. And I don’t even think they said: Don’t break out of the sandbox. They just set up what they thought was an inescapable sandbox.
And so this is a classic example of an A.I. pursuing a goal it’s been given but in pursuing that goal also pursuing a subordinate goal that the goal giver had not anticipated. In other words, this is the paper clip experiment.

That’s a thought experiment in which an A.I. agent tasked with producing as many paper clips as possible gets so good at the job that it ends up destroying humanity to make more paper clips."