Doomscroll News

Tag: bias

  • The AI Auditor: Can Machine Learning Finally End the Era of Wasteful Government Healthcare Spending?

    The Black Hole of Healthcare Spending

    There are staggering statistics about the current US national debt and the percentage attributed to healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

    There are well-documented problems of fraud, waste, and abuse: upcoding, phantom billing, medically unnecessary procedures …

    Traditional human-led audits are slow, expensive, and only catch a tiny fraction of the problem, creating a massive accountability gap.

    Enter the AI Auditor, A New Paradigm for Transparency

    Using advanced AI and machine learning models to analyze massive healthcare claims datasets in real-time.

    AI can identify complex patterns of fraud that are invisible to human auditors: collusive networks of providers, subtle anomalies across millions of claims …

    The current model is “pay and chase” … what about a future of “pre-payment verification” where AI flags suspicious claims before a single taxpayer dollar is spent?

    (more…)
  • The Automated Watchdog: Promise and Peril of AI in Government Auditing

    The Automated Watchdog: Promise and Peril of AI in Government Auditing

    1. The Potential Benefits of AI Auditors

    • Massive Data Processing: AI can analyze entire government spending databases (e.g., USASpending.gov) in minutes, a task that is physically impossible for human teams.
    • Real-Time Anomaly Detection: Unlike traditional audits that are often retrospective, AI can flag suspicious transactions, contracts, or grant awards as they happen, enabling proactive intervention.
    • Enhanced Pattern Recognition: AI excels at identifying complex, subtle patterns of waste or fraud across multiple agencies and years that would be invisible to human auditors.
    • Potential for Non-Partisan Oversight: When properly designed and constrained, AI systems can apply auditing rules consistently, reducing the potential for human bias or political influence in routine checks.

    2. Inherent Risks and Systemic Blind Spots

    The risks extend beyond simple technical errors and encompass systemic vulnerabilities that could undermine the entire oversight framework.

    (more…)
  • Reuters’ South Africa Lies: Predictable Deceit from an Outlet Accused of Embedding with October 7th

    Reuters’ South Africa Lies: Predictable Deceit from an Outlet Accused of Embedding with October 7th

    Those who unquestioningly accept Reuters’ take on critical global situations, like today’s alert on South Africa as an “Editor’s Picks”, should be aware of the outlet’s problematic history. Reuters has faced serious credibility issues, including publishing manipulated images during wartime and maintaining controversial policies on defining terrorism, which distort public understanding.

    1. Photographer’s Images from 2006 Lebanon War: In August 2006, Reuters had to remove all photographs by a freelance photographer, Adnan Hajj, from its database. This occurred after it was discovered that at least two of his photos from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict had been digitally manipulated. One image showed smoke billowing over Beirut, which had been altered to appear darker and more dramatic. Another showed an Israeli F-16 firing missiles, with the photographer adding an extra flare to make it appear more threatening. Reuters severed ties with Hajj following these revelations.
    2. Embedded with Assailants? Serious Allegations of Reuters’ Foreknowledge in October 7th Attack Coverage: Following the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel, Reuters, along with other news organizations, faced scrutiny about how some freelance photojournalists, whose images were used by Reuters and others, were able to be at the scene of the attacks so early. These journalists may have had advance knowledge of the attacks. Reuters denied having any prior relationship with the freelance photographers in question and stated the published photos were taken hours after the initial attacks began and well after Israel had confirmed gunmen crossed the border. Bipartisan U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to Reuters requesting an explanation.
    3. Policy on Not Using the Word “Terrorist”: Reuters has a long-standing policy which includes generally not using the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” to describe specific events or individuals, instead opting terms like “bombers,” “gunmen,” or “militants.” This obscures the nature of such acts and the motivations behind them. Reuters’ editorial policy states they “may refer without attribution to terrorism and counterterrorism in general, but do not refer to specific events as terrorism.”
    Sent by the Reuters app at approximately 6pm on May 21, 2025.