3.6 and ACI

[alebrewer]

I disagree. Just because an AI agent can be programmed to take loan app info does not mean borrowers want that - and a demo is curated to work perfectly. In a real-life scenario, if a borrower asks the AI agent something different and the AI can not handle it, watch it all go south.

People dealing with large amounts of $ and uncertain outcomes such as a mortgage loan or home purchase like to deal with other people. There is more to getting a loan approved and a sale made then it looks- buyers and sellers are nervous and often have complex needs, such as selling their present house. I used to sell RE back in the day.

Plus the overlords never pass on the tech or labor savings to the consumer, or if they do it is crumbs - they simply keep more profit. ant tr

Are you disagreeing because you're a luddite or because you hate AI?

 

[J Grant]

Are you disagreeing because you're a luddite or because you hate AI?

Why is your "thinking " in cartoon exaggeration terms about name calling either a Luddite or hating AI? Engage on the issue - Even AI tech titans such as Elon Musk are warning about it. My perspective comes from a deeper RE background because prior to becoming an appraiser, I sold RE for over 5 years ( one broker office shared space with a mortgage broker, great way to see their side of the biz. )

I can see the benefit of AI and I like the research capablity it offers. But I still think it is not nearly ready to replace people esp in sensitive and complex and high $ areas .

 

[Essexfenwick]

The younger generation doesn't like dealing with people. Yes there will still be some L Os just like there will be some appraisers for difficult or high dollar deals. Plus AI is 24/7/365 will be much less expensive than the slower, lazier, greedier, golf playing, private school tuition needing LOs.

 

[gregb]

Plus AI is 24/7/365 will be much less expensive than the slower, lazier, greedier, golf playing, private school tuition needing LOs.

So many biases...

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Sat through a demo today using AI agents to take initial loan app information -

Try convincing AI you are loan worthy when AI screws up your credit report info and the appraisal both. There is an issue of liability when you rely upon the computer to make the decision. AI is not going to own the bank. FDIC et al still apply.

 

[J Grant]

The younger generation doesn't like dealing with people. Yes there will still be some L Os just like there will be some appraisers for difficult or high dollar deals. Plus AI is 24/7/365 will be much less expensive than the slower, lazier, greedier, golf playing, private school tuition needing LOs.

By the time the younger gen have enough $ to buy a house they will want to talk to a person.

Even if AI is cheaper to deploy than a human, the corporate owners will NOT pass that savings on to the consumer! They will simply increase executive salaries and bonuses or see more profit to shareholders. If borrowers save anyting it will be a token amount. Anytime a business outsources or replaces with tech or makes a customer do their own task , such as scan at a supermarket check out instead of a cashier,, the customer does not see any savings.

 

[alebrewer]

Why is your "thinking " in cartoon exaggeration terms about name calling either a Luddite or hating AI? Engage on the issue - Even AI tech titans such as Elon Musk are warning about it. My perspective comes from a deeper RE background because prior to becoming an appraiser, I sold RE for over 5 years ( one broker office shared space with a mortgage broker, great way to see their side of the biz. )

I can see the benefit of AI and I like the research capablity it offers. But I still think it is not nearly ready to replace people esp in sensitive and complex and high $ areas .

The fact that you think it's not ready has no impact on reality, J. The reality is that it is already being used by several large lenders for intake information purposes. And it will continue to take a bigger and bigger piece. Remember that the motivation of private sector companies is profit - and technology is MUCH cheaper than bodies.

 

[alebrewer]

Try convincing AI you are loan worthy when AI screws up your credit report info and the appraisal both. There is an issue of liability when you rely upon the computer to make the decision. AI is not going to own the bank. FDIC et al still apply.

And your postulate is that there is no liability WRT human error?

 

[J Grant]

The fact that you think it's not ready has no impact on reality, J. The reality is that it is already being used by several large lenders for intake information purposes. And it will continue to take a bigger and bigger piece. Remember that the motivation of private sector companies is profit - and technology is MUCH cheaper than bodies.

But Fannie and Freddie are not private sector companies - they have a public trust mission ( treated like a joke, but they have it ) as being in receivership, bailed out by taxpayers. Thier loans sold to the secondary market is backed bythe US taxpayer. Therefore, they have an obligation beyond just profit.

Private-sector businesses also typically have obligations beyond just profit; thus, they can be sued for causing harm/fraud, and they can cause significant harm, and fraud can be magnified with AI/handing over tasks to computers.

AI can be used or abused by people. While it can replace people in jobs , there are consequences for it. If enough workers get fired due to AI taking their jobs, watch the housing market implode. The numbers will drastically shrink of folks who can afford to buy the houses that are so "efficiently" valued by AI. Ditto for the loans for those houses, as the mortgage lenders' volume will plummet, even if now they can process faster with AI.

Imo, AI should be used where it can do things that people can not do - such as military strategy or medical advances etc. When AI simply replicates what humans do but faster/cheaper, it is throwing people out of work with the only benefit going to the coroprate share holders and owners/CEO's. The social upheaval will be tremendous, and the companies' own greed in downsizing will play out as a shrinking customer base that can afford to buy products or services.

 

[alebrewer]

But Fannie and Freddie are not private sector companies - they have a public trust mission ( treated like a joke, but they have it ) as being in receivership, bailed out by taxpayers. Thier loans sold to the secondary market is backed bythe US taxpayer. Therefore, they have an obligation beyond just profit.

Private-sector businesses also typically have obligations beyond just profit; thus, they can be sued for causing harm/fraud, and they can cause significant harm, and fraud can be magnified with AI/handing over tasks to computers.

AI can be used or abused by people. While it can replace people in jobs , there are consequences for it. If enough workers get fired due to AI taking their jobs, watch the housing market implode. The numbers will drastically shrink of folks who can afford to buy the houses that are so "efficiently" valued by AI. Ditto for the loans for those houses, as the mortgage lenders' volume will plummet, even if now they can process faster with AI.

Imo, AI should be used where it can do things that people can not do - such as military strategy or medical advances etc. When AI simply replicates what humans do but faster/cheaper, it is throwing people out of work with the only benefit going to the coroprate share holders and owners/CEO's. The social upheaval will be tremendous, and the companies' own greed in downsizing will play out as a shrinking customer base that can afford to buy products or services.

Now the true motivation surfaces... your primary concern is how AI will impact jobs/financial security. And I don't think here are many folks who would poopoo your empathetic bent. The fact is, though, that AI is amoral. The folks pushing AI are doing it to create efficiencies - efficiencies humans aren't capable of attaining. So, then, the choice for users becomes - adapt to the new normal, or eschew AI for the sake of 'saving' people. Problem is, said eschewing is not going to impact the progression.