The post Actuarial Review March/April 2026 appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

The prevalence of AI-generated summaries within search engine results has increased dramatically over the past two years. An ongoing weekly study by Advanced Web Ranking showed that as of January 5th, 2026, Google’s search engine produced an AI Overview on 60.2% of ,[1] compared to only 12.4% as of July 2024.[2]

But the rise in AI summaries does not necessarily coincide with an increase in the accuracy of the underlying large language models (LLMs). According to some sources, the latest models actually show an increase in “hallucinations,” a phenomenon in which the LLM inserts fabricated information into a response.[3] Estimates for the frequency of these errors vary by model and query type. One ongoing study that looks at Gen AI’s ability to summarize an article found hallucination rates between 1.8% and 7.8% among the top Gen AI models.[4] Even Google’s Gemini model, when asked how trustworthy AI Summaries are, provided this reply: “Recent tests in 2025 indicated that roughly one in five AI Overviews may return inaccurate or misleading answers… Accuracy drops significantly for specific, less-documented topics where the AI may fill “data voids” with off-base information.”[5]

What’s troubling is not only the tendency of AI-generated information to be wrong, but its tendency to be “confidently wrong.” A study conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review[6] in March 2025 found that eight leading Gen AI tools had a collective error rate of 60% when providing citation information that could have otherwise been easily found by clicking through the first few search engine results. The incorrect responses were often presented with complete confidence and no qualifying statements or expressions of uncertainty. While the tools self-filtered by declining to provide responses in some cases, this behavior differed across the tools. ChatGPT, for example, provided a response to every query despite a high error rate in its responses. In contrast, Microsoft Copilot declined to reply for over half the questions.

What This Means for Actuaries:

Even though LLMs have not yet entered the mainstream of actuarial practice, they may be creeping into the periphery of actuarial work through the use of internet search engines for information retrieval.

Consider just a few possible ways that actuaries may rely on search engines to directly inform their work:

• Searching for laws / regulations / ASOPs related to insurance pricing or reserving.
• Searching for information on actuarial methodologies or exam syllabi topics.
• Searching for information related to emerging sources of risk for purposes of risk classification or for assessing the possibility of adverse deviation of reserves.

Many of these use cases are related to niche, less-documented topics — the sorts of topics that Gen AI confesses itself to be particularly error-prone on.

As a result, actuaries should be particularly careful when using AI summaries from search engines. While it can be tempting to rely on an authoritative-sounding AI summary instead of clicking into search results to read the details of a primary source (e.g. DOI bulletin, statutory law, ASOP, CAS paper, etc.), these AI summaries should at most be used as a starting point, not a final destination, for information. Would any actuary feel comfortable using Microsoft Excel if they knew that 1% of the time, Excel would fabricate a result instead of correctly executing a formula?

[1] https://www.advancedwebranking.com/free-seo-tools/google-ai-overview#faq

[2] https://www.advancedwebranking.com/blog/ai-overview-study

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/technology/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-google.html

[4] https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard

[5] Ironically, Gemini did not cite the source of the test results.

[6] https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/we-compared-eight-ai-search-engines-theyre-all-bad-at-citing-news.php

The post The Rise (and Perils) of AI Summaries in Search Engine Results appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

On November 23, 2025, the Hayli Gubbi volcano in Ethiopia reported its first recorded eruption, emitting over 220,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. High-altitude winds pushed the resulting ashfall as far as Northern India, leading to the delay or cancellation of more than a dozen international flights. According to the local authority, settled ash made it difficult for local livestock to find clean grass and water. As human settlement expands into remote regions and global air traffic increases, events like this highlight important questions about whether existing catastrophe frameworks adequately reflect the evolving reach of volcanic activity and its impact on underwritten exposures.

Geographically, this concern is most salient along the west coasts of North and South America and across Japan, the Philippines, and New Zealand — a region collectively known as the “Ring of Fire,” where the vast majority of both volcanos and earthquakes are concentrated. Data from the Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program indicate the U.S. ranks third, behind Indonesia and Japan, in the number of volcanoes active since 1950. Their research shows that the increase in volcanic activity over time generally reflects the “increases in populations living near volcanoes to observe eruptions and improvements in communication technologies to report those eruptions.” At the same time, volcanic activity has increased more slowly than global population growth over the past two centuries, leading to the conclusion that there has been no discernible change in eruption frequency in recent experience. For actuaries, this apparent tension will be a familiar challenge: distinguishing true changes in hazard from shifts in exposure, improvements in detection capabilities, and reporting practices.

What This Means for Actuaries:

Coverage for volcanic losses varies by line of business and whether damage results directly from the eruption or from secondary perils it triggers. Wording varies by jurisdiction and form, but standard homeowners policies explicitly include volcanic eruption as a covered peril; however, many of the indirect consequences of an eruption (flooding, earthquakes, landslides, and shock waves) are typically excluded unless separately endorsed. Commercial auto policies present a different profile. While damage from the immediate effects of an eruption, including pyroclastic flows, ashfall, shock waves, and lahars may be covered, losses arising from sustained or gradual exposure to volcanic ash are likely to be excluded. These coverage distinctions were likely last examined in earnest following the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. According to the Northwest Insurance Council and the Insurance Information Institute, this event generated around 40,000 insurance claims and an estimated $27-31 million in insured losses — approximately $100 million in today’s dollars.

It may be up for debate whether global volcanic activity is increasing in frequency, but its relevance to insurers may nonetheless be growing. Evolving exposure, complex coverage interactions, and increased global interdependence mean that a particularly situated, unexpected eruption could generate losses beyond its immediate footprint, including business interruption or supply-chain disruption.  We cannot predict the next eruption; we can, however, refuse to be surprised by its financial consequences.

Sources:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ethiopian-volcano-erupts-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-12000-years-of-scientific-records-180987764

https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-volcano-afar-hayli-gubbi-flights-india-e9b4731d12787d7956f1ffbd16961f2a

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/hayli-gubbis-explosive-first-impression/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/08/climate-crisis-melting-glaciers-ice-caps-volcanic-eruptions-chile-antartica-volcanoes

https://www.nwinsurance.org/hot-topics/mount-st-helens-anniversary#:~:text=Helens%20eruption,auto%20and%20business%20insurance%20policies.

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=historicalactivity

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02208-1

https://environment.uw.edu/news/2025/04/the-pacific-northwests-most-active-underwater-volcano-is-getting-ready-to-erupt/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2025/02/28/volcano-eruptions-2025-ring-of-fire/80463843007/

https://www.iii.org/article/volcanic-eruption-coverage

The post Reviewing ‘Ash’umptions: Another Look at Volcanic Risk appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

Despite these signs of progress, questions remain over AVs’ readiness for scale.  AVs grounded San Francisco to a halt in December 2025 when citywide blackouts darkened traffic lights.  Waymo’s software was overloaded by novel information such as more pedestrians crossing and other taxis in close proximity (also unsure what to do), creating gridlock.  Other recent reports of odd behavior include Waymo taxis stopping in front of oncoming trains and swerving into traffic.  Tesla’s position as an early innovator has contributed to FSD in particular becoming a bellwether for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) inquiries regarding cooperation with traffic laws and performance in sun glare or fog conditions.  Waymo recently recalled several vehicles in Austin for their failure to stop for school buses, triggering a different NHTSA evaluation.  Still other issues of potential concern to regulators include remote teleoperators and deployment of service packs (e.g. software updates, bug fixes, security patches, etc.).

While regulators navigate the complexity, private citizens are taking to the courts.  In September 2025 a Florida jury rendered a nine figure verdict (primarily punitive) against Tesla over its alleged role in a 2019 accident involving AutoPilot, where Tesla’s marketing was found to have contributed to the negligent driver’s false sense of security while inattentive.  Waymo must also defend claims related to vehicles’ lawful behavior, for example, that two of its taxis impeded a bike lane and caused serious injury.

As injuries and litigation pile up, governments may start to pull back.  China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology significantly scaled down ambitious plans for driverless taxis after a recent fatal accident involving three university students.  A draft federal bill in the US aimed to improve competitiveness with China also met apprehension from stakeholders – including the insurance industry – in early 2026.  The American Property Casualty Insurance Association and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies raised concerns around preemption of state regulation and limitations on data access.

What This Means for Actuaries:

In 2018 the CAS AV Task Force delivered its flagship report.  The authors suggested the need to consider potentially massive frequency reductions (e.g. Lemonade pricing premise); shifts from personal auto to product liability and related severity increases (e.g. the Tesla verdict); new or newly important risk factors (e.g. ceasing operations during blackouts or fog); and data sufficiency issues (e.g. whether AVs are on current software).  Actuaries grappling with issues from assistive features to robotic fleet coverage would be well-served to read (and evolve) the CAS study rather than riding out decades-old approaches on autopilot.

Sources

• https://www.act-news.com/news/waymo-incidents-trigger-nhtsa-review/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-01-06/are-autonomous-vehicles-safer-than-human-drivers-we-don-t-know-yet
• https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a69849571/waymo-robotaxis-roadblocks-san-francisco-blackout/
• https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/pubs_forum_18spforum_01_avtf_2018_report.pdf
• https://www.fastcompany.com/90129372/firefly-googles-cute-self-driving-car-is-dead
• https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/01/16/854682.htm
• https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/01/21/855011.htm
• https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-01-16/tesla-is-probing-if-its-self-driving-technology-caused-thousands-of-traffic-violations
• https://www.local10.com/news/local/2025/08/04/this-is-a-warning-attorneys-say-expect-more-lawsuits-after-240m-tesla-autopilot-verdict/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/technology/personaltech/zoox-driverless-taxis-san-francisco.html
• https://people.com/passenger-forced-to-flee-self-driving-vehicle-after-stops-path-of-oncoming-train-11884070
• https://people.com/waymo-passenger-films-scary-near-miss-in-self-driving-taxi-11870667
• https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-auto-safety-agency-investigating-two-new-gm-cruise-crash-reports-2023-10-26/
• https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/china-bets-europe-self-driving-tech-expansion-2025-10-06/

The post Autonomous Vehicles Hit Bumps in the Road appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

The CAS Board of Directors has adopted a strategic plan that features a compelling vision for the future, with five well-defined strategic priorities to make that vision a reality. If you have not yet fully digested the CAS Strategic Plan, I highly recommend you take the opportunity to do so (CAS_2025_Strategic-Plan.pdf). While CAS staff and volunteers will continue to energetically pursue the entire plan over the next two years, I am particularly focused on three important projects we will pursue this year. 

Brand Refresh: The CAS last updated its brand assets and messaging in 2013. In today’s fast-paced world, it is critical to keep our image and messaging on point and tailored to effectively communicate with each of our key stakeholder groups. The way we present ourselves to employers, potential candidates, regulators, universities, and the general public needs to be specifically tailored to resonate with each group. That is what the brand refresh effort is all about. This effort has been underway for some time, and we expect to share more updates in the coming months.  

Preliminary Exams: We need to address challenges with the structure of our preliminary exams to better align with the needs of university students, faculty, and career changers, thereby placing us on a level playing field with our competitors and equipping future actuaries with the skills they need to be successful. Currently, the CAS requires candidates to complete Exams 1 and 2. In the United States, these requirements are most commonly fulfilled by completing SOA exams P and FM, which are controlled and administered by the SOA. After completing these exams, university students face a choice to sit for a third SOA exam or the CAS MAS I and II Exams at a time when they may not have determined whether they wish to pursue the SOA or CAS credentialing pathway. This places an unfortunate burden on students as they weigh which exams to pursue and on faculty as they strive to guide their students through the process. In light of this, one of our key initiatives in the coming year involves a review of preliminary exam requirements, based on the results of our Actuarial Professional Analysis, to determine what changes we may make to ensure our pathway remains accessible, competitive, and attractive to new candidates, while maintaining our high standards and meeting the needs of employers and the profession. 

A word of caution seems appropriate here, as any possible changes to the exam content outlines, particularly at early stages, can feel disruptive to students, candidates, faculty, and employers. Rest assured, we are not pursuing a specific predetermined solution that we plan to implement immediately. Rather, we are undertaking a thoughtful assessment and sense-testing alternative solutions, and any potential changes will be thoroughly evaluated and communicated well in advance of any future implementation date.  

CAS Website: Building on our brand refresh, we will be undertaking a refresh of the CAS website, and I am pleased to share that this work is already underway. As you know, the CAS recently implemented a modern Association Management System and CAS Portal to better support e-commerce transactions and management of membership and other data. The CAS Portal implementation addressed critical cybersecurity and data privacy concerns, but more needs to be done to meet member needs. The new website will incorporate modern technology, enhanced search capabilities, and additional features members have been asking for. We will be using member and candidate survey data and website feedback in our development process.  While timelines for a project of this nature are always fluid, we hope to begin the rollout later in 2026, which will also allow us to incorporate changes in branding assets and messaging as the brand refresh is implemented. 

During my term as president-elect, I had many opportunities to meet with members and leaders of other actuarial organizations, CAS Regional Affiliates, university students and faculty members, regulators, and employers of CAS members. Across all of these stakeholder groups, respect for the CAS organization and its members is evident. Individual members of other organizations who practice in the P&C arena universally regard the CAS as the global leader in P&C actuarial knowledge, and many have even expressed a desire to become a CAS member, if that were possible without “starting over” on the CAS pathway. We are investigating the possibility of various “on-ramps” to the CAS for career changers and experienced P&C practitioners with other actuarial credentials–and these conversations simply reinforce to me the strength of the CAS brand among P&C practitioners — something our brand refresh efforts can undoubtedly build on.   

The other unique aspect of the CAS that was reinforced by these interactions is the comparatively high engagement level of CAS members, as demonstrated in both volunteerism and CAS event attendance. We enjoy a remarkable record of member volunteerism, with nearly 30% of CAS members volunteering in some capacity in 2024. Attendance at CAS meetings and seminars is also significant. In 2024, total attendance at 38 live events approached 30,000 — that’s more than two events per member!  

As I begin my tenure, I am keenly aware of just how special the CAS is and how fortunate I am to be a member, let alone a leader, of such a unique organization. I also feel a certain amount of responsibility to ensure the CAS retains the characteristics that make it so unique. I am incredibly grateful for the trust placed in me to serve as CAS president, and I will do my part to ensure the CAS remains respected, vibrant, and strong.

The post The Year Ahead appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

Rade Musulin, FCAS, MAAA, will receive the Jarvis Farley Service Award — a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Actuaries that honors a member whose volunteer efforts on behalf of the Academy have made significant contributions to the advancement of the profession. His work has included advancing knowledge and public acceptance of hurricane and catastrophe models and broadening the P&C conversation to include climate risk, cyber risk, and sustainability. 

Mick Vassilev, FCAS, FCIA, has been appointed chief actuary at Fair. Vassilev brings more than two decades of actuarial and insurance experience to Fair. He led LGM Financial Services for more than 13 years as chief actuary, overseeing product pricing, claims liability estimation, underwriting profit projections, and risk management for their auto warranty products. Before that, he spent 7.5 years at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), where he specialized in P&C underwriting, bodily injury claims analysis, loss reserving, and rate indications. 

Dan Latinsky, FCAS, has been appointed chief risk officer at Bishop Street Underwriters. In this role, Dan will be responsible for furthering Bishop Street’s capabilities in underwriting excellence, profitability monitoring, actuarial and pricing discipline, and overall portfolio composition and strategy. Dan joins the organization with experience from Obsidian Insurance Holdings, where he oversaw pricing and profitability monitoring across the company’s program portfolio.  

Keith Lau, FCAS, has been appointed chief actuary at the Western Investment Company of Canada Limited. Lau is an accomplished actuarial leader with more than 10 years of experience in the Canadian P&C insurance sector. He brings significant expertise in pricing, reserving, and reporting and provides a valuable strategic addition to Western’s growing decentralized insurance platform. Lau has served in a range of actuarial roles, most recently as Cover Genius’ head of Americas pricing. Lau also held various roles at PwC, where he led actuarial and audit engagements, played a central role in IFRS 17 implementation, and served as a trusted advisor to executive teams on matters related to capital, reserves, and solvency.  

Vincent Senia, FCAS, MAAA, has announced his retirement from his role as executive vice president, chief actuary at Selective Insurance, effective January 20, 2026. Senia has held the position since 2017 and has been instrumental in shaping Selective’s actuarial reserving, pricing, and planning strategies, as well as enhancing its data analytics capabilities. Senia joined Selective in 2010 as senior vice president, actuarial reserving. 

Nathan Rugge, FCAS, MAAA, has been named executive vice president, chief actuary at Selective Insurance. Rugge joined Selective in 2009 and has played a key role in the company’s pricing and reserving strategies. He has held various actuarial roles of increasing responsibility, including assistant vice president, personal lines pricing, and senior vice president, actuarial reserving. 

Gloria Gilliam, ACAS, MAAA, was named board president for the International Association of Black Actuaries (IABA). Gilliam has dedicated many years to IABA’s mission, including past roles as board secretary and vice president. She is vice president and reserving actuary at Chubb. Prior to her current role, she held multiple positions at PwC and Deloitte, specializing in financial reporting, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and risk advisory for P&C insurers and self-insured clients. Her work has spanned traditional reserving as well as emerging areas like ESG risk analysis. 

Gary Haase, FCAS, MBA, has been named executive vice president and CEO of legacy operations at Everest Group Ltd. Haase brings more than two decades of experience across insurance, reinsurance, and financial services. Most recently, he has served as executive advisor to private equity and technology firms, guiding them through insurance M&A and AI transformation. Previously, he led enterprise technology, data and analytics, operations, and the development of cloud-native analytics and automation platforms at CNA Financial Corporation. Haase spent more than a decade with Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. He also held actuarial and reinsurance roles at Quanta U.S. Holdings and Aon Benfield. 

The post Comings and Goings appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

The Tennis Star and Family Man
John A. Gibson III (FCAS 1965)
1937-2025 

John A. Gibson III was a devoted husband for over 33 years to his loving wife, Constance Miller-Gibson, and a loving father, grandfather, and brother. At the heart of his close-knit family, Gibson’s steady presence and generous spirit were cherished by all who knew him. A gifted athlete, Gibson played center for Penn High School and later briefly for Brown University, where he pursued studies in mathematics and economics. His sharp analytical mind led him to a distinguished career as an actuary. Known for his clarity, precision, and integrity, he held senior leadership roles at Travelers Insurance and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company, ultimately retiring as senior vice president of actuarial and underwriting. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Gibson was an avid tennis player, a passionate football fan, and a dedicated basketball referee. Yet it was his unwavering kindness and quiet strength that truly defined him. Whether offering guidance, lending a hand, or simply showing up when it mattered most, Gibson could always be counted on. His legacy endures in the lives he touched, the family he loved, and the countless moments of generosity and wisdom he shared. 

The Active Outdoorsman
Paul John Henzler (FCAS 1984)
1950-2025 

Paul John Henzler of Bloomfield, Connecticut, beloved husband for 50 years of Mary Ann (Greno) Henzler, passed away in September 2025. Paul was born in Buffalo, New York, the son of the late Howard and Grace (Schubert) Henzler. He received his bachelor’s degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo and earned his master’s degree from Michigan State University. Paul was employed with Travelers Insurance Company as a casualty actuary and retired after more than 40 years of dedicated service. He was a faithful communicant of Sacred Heart Church in Bloomfield, serving as sacristan for a number of years. He was a lifelong Buffalo Bills fan, still awaiting their Super Bowl win. More than anything, Paul was devoted to his family near and far. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, and friend who will fondly be remembered as a kind and caring man. Some of his family’s best memories are from vacations, climbing Mt. Monadnock, participating in the annual bocce and shuffleboard tournaments, but most of all playing board games with friends every summer for the last 34 years. He loved being active and spending time outdoors; some of his favorite activities were cycling, gardening, and hiking. When traveling, he enjoyed planning a full itinerary of vacation excursions. Paul’s greatest joy was his granddaughters. He is survived by his wife and his daughters, Caitlin Spatcher and her husband David of Bloomfield, and Lauren Henzler of West Hartford and her partner Paul Norko; his granddaughters, Rowan, Hayden, and Vivian Spatcher; his brother, Gary Henzler and his wife Sheryl; and nephew, John Bradley Henzler; as well as other relatives and friends. 

The Theologian Actuary 
Ronald “Ron” Ferguson (FCAS)
1942-2025 

Ronald Ferguson passed away in Fairfield, Connecticut, in July 2025. Known for his endearing interest in the lives of others, Ferguson leaves behind a legacy of intellectual curiosity, professional excellence, and unwavering devotion. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, Ferguson was the beloved son of William and Betty Ferguson. From an early age, he demonstrated a profound love for learning, a characteristic that would define his entire life. Ron earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Blackburn College before pursuing a Master of Actuarial Science at the University of Michigan. His sharp mind and dedication propelled him to a distinguished career, culminating in many years as the CEO of General Re Corporation, and provided leadership as a board member for several public companies and organizations. Under his leadership, General Re thrived, a testament to his strategic vision and keen intellect. After retirement, he earned a Master of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary. Ron shared a remarkable 60-year marriage with his beloved wife, Carol Ferguson. Together, they built a life filled with love, laughter, and shared experiences, residing in Bonita Springs, Florida, and previously in Fairfield, Connecticut. Ron is survived by his devoted wife, their two children, grandchildren, and extended family: Brian Ferguson (Cathy) of Boston, Massachusetts, and Kristin Wackerman (James) of Fairfield, Connecticut. He was also a cherished grandfather to six beautiful grandchildren: Lindsey (Rachael), William Ferguson, Benjamin Ferguson, Clay Wackerman, Connor Wackerman, and Kailey Wackerman. He leaves behind three loving sisters: Linda Schroeder, Dianne Harris, and June Franzen (David), along with many nieces and nephews who will dearly miss his presence. 

The post In Remembrance appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

John A. Gibson III (FCAS 1965) 
1937-2025 

Paul John Henzler (FCAS 1984) 
1950-2025 

Ronald “Ron” Ferguson (FCAS) 
1942-2025 

The post In Memorium appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

Two competitions ran in parallel: one in Portuguese for Brazilian university students and one in Spanish for institutions in Spanish-speaking Latin America. Both challenged students to develop an enhanced renter’s insurance rating plan using predictive models to incorporate risk segmentation. Teams with the strongest models moved to the finals, where they presented their methodologies and business insights to a panel of judges. 

Actuarial programs in Latin American universities have traditionally focused on life and retirement. However, P&C has become more prominent in curriculums in recent years, and that became apparent during the competition. Students produced high-quality models that had technical accuracy and presentations that included strategic business recommendations, showing that these students are eager to deliver on the CAS Envisioned Future: 

CAS members are sought after globally for their insights and ability to apply analytics to solve insurance and risk management problems. 

The educational value of the competitions was the main draw, but attractive prizes added excitement. Thanks to our sponsors — WTW for Brazil and ACTEX Learning for Spanish LatAm — all participants received exam discounts and free ACTEX study materials. Top teams earned free exams, registrations for CAS Data and Insurance Series Courses (DISCs), and gift cards. In addition, the universities of the top three teams in each competition received printed ACTEX study manuals and free participation in the Global Actuarial Faculty Development Program. 

These were the top teams in each of the competitions: 

Brazil 

1st Place: Bahtuários – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul 

• Students: FernandoDudczakLummertz, Rafael Sindermann Lumertz, Tiago Haddad Carraro, and Ricardo Dorigon Martins 
• Mentor: Prof. José AntônioLumertz

2nd Place: Artesãos do Risco – Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 

• Students: LeonardoBirenbaum, Lucas Pessanha Barbosa, Luiz GuilhermeVianey da Silva, and Pedro Garitano Piñeiro 
• Mentor: Prof. Eduardo Fraga Lima de Melo

3rd Place: USPATU – Universidade de São Paulo 

• Students: Alexandre Mota dos Santos, Christian Ribeiro de Mendonça, Iago Barrios Medeiros,JulioCesar Arminini de Araújo Lima, and Matheus de Souza Nascimento 
• Mentor: Prof. Thiago Dutra Araujo

Spanish LatAm 

1st Place: Riskbusters – Universidad Nacional de Colombia 

• Students: Maria Paula Arévalo Fuentes, Natalia Catherine ParraCuellar, Laura Milena RoaLeguizamón, John Anderson Guarin Lopez, and Luis Enrique Mantilla Sanabria 
• Mentor: Prof. José Alfredo Jiménez Moscoso

2nd Place: EstocasTicos – Universidad de Costa Rica 

• Students: Fabián Brenes Thomas, Félix Madrigal Mora, MarcoAntonioGuardia Ortiz, and Laura Jimena Villacís Delgado 
• Mentor: Prof. Esteban Bermúdez Aguilar

3rd Place: Riesgo País – Universidad de Buenos Aires 

• Students: EstebanFerminAlmeida, Victoria Ryan, Lola Faigenbaum, Ignacio Conti, and Santiago Ramiro Sosa 
• Mentor: Prof. Carolina Cristina Castro

There is a nuanced but valuable lesson that students also learned from these events: the power of volunteerism. As one student commented, “Not long ago, we knew very little about the CAS, and even beyond the competition, your dedication has been promoting many positive changes to our actuarial landscape.” Indeed, I worked with a group of very dedicated people to make this all happen: 

• Organizing committee:
• Roberto Pérez, FCAS
• Fernando Alvarado, FCAS
• Celeste Bremen, FCAS
• JuanSancén-Bravo, ACAS, AIDA, ARM
• Gabe Necoechea, ACTEX Learning Representative
• Brazilian competition judges:
• Celeste Bremen, FCAS
• Claudia Novello Ribeiro, CASAffiliateMember, MIBA 
• Isabella Oliveira, CAS Affiliate Member, MIBA, and WTW Representative
• Spanish LatAm competition judges: 
• Fernando Alvarado, FCAS
• JuanSancén-Bravo, ACAS, AIDA, ARM
• Stephen Camilli, FSA, ACTEX Learning Representative
• Florencia Di Paolo, MBA, Representative from the Argentine Society of Actuaries (SAAC)
• CAS staff:
• Katie Mulembe, Director of International Relations and Affairs
• Olivia Curtis, Cross-Functional Program Coordinator 

I am grateful for the contribution of LARWG volunteers and the engagement of our corporate sponsors and the CAS community. Initiatives like this greatly strengthen the global presence of the CAS and support the development of the actuarial profession in Latin America. We look forward to continuing this work and expanding opportunities for students and universities in the region. 

Rafael Costa, FCAS, MIBA, is an associate director at WTW. 

The post Predictive Modeling Takes Center Stage in CAS Latin America Case Competitions appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.

Two years later, it is not clear which future has started to emerge. The Magnificent Seven^[1] still enjoy titanic valuations, but studies have shown organizations have not realized positive return on investment (ROI) on the vast majority of GenAI pilots. There are some signs that the technology is exhibiting properties of the Gartner Hype Cycle, where society overvalues inventions in the short term. Capability enhancement has arguably slowed, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently suggesting AGI is a pointless term.^[2] However, AGI remains in OpenAI’s mission statement, and Altman and other tech moguls have reportedly made “apocalypse insurance” arrangements just in case.^[3] And, of course, the Hype Cycle also indicates that society undervalues inventions’ long-term potential.

As the insurance industry’s resident jacks of all trades, actuaries have long relied on general intelligence, which is defined as “a collection of mental abilities that allow an individual to comprehend and interpret the world, reason and solve problems, and adjust their behavior to suit their surroundings.”^[4] To the extent AGI represents a synthetic (and potentially cheaper) alternative, it should be of keen interest to actuaries — but even AGI does not necessarily spell doomsday. This sequel to our 2023 discussion envisions four ways AI may come of age in the actuarial profession — either as incremental progress (Industrial Age), solutions to problems (Age of Reason), intellectual decay (Dark Ages), or complex and inexplicable behavior (Space Age). Are you ready for the future?

Industrial age

Intelligence is difficult to measure. “Everybody has a different definition of AGI,” says Len Llaguno, FCAS, founder and managing partner of KYROS. “We’re constantly moving the goalposts. The litmus test for AGI used to be the Turing Test and being able to tell the difference between talking to a human or a machine. When GenAI eclipsed that, we decided to start giving it the SATs, the bar exam, medical exams — and it kept passing. Now it is winning gold in the International Mathematical Olympiad. How do any of these generate value for insurance companies?” In insurance, this value is typically measured in dollars. Llaguno subscribes to the rather capitalist definition of AGI proposed by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. “If we truly have AGI, there is likely to be massive productivity growth,” he says. “GDP would increase on the order of 10% annually,” characteristic of the Industrial Revolution. While the S&P 500 may exhibit growth on that order recently, GDP growth has typically been much lower. MIT’s recent research, which indicated that 95% of enterprise GenAI proofs of concept (POCs) fail to generate positive ROI, does not suggest massive GDP growth is on the horizon.

However, focusing on short-term dollars may undervalue intangible assets unlikely to register on balance sheets. “A lot of the ROI of these early projects is in the value of the learning,” says Llaguno. The MIT ROI study may also focus too much on central tendency. The tails are very important to differentiating what humans can do versus what machines can do. “A lot of organizations may invest in AI that gives them nonsense, but a handful of projects may achieve enough benefits to pay for all the others,” says Ralph Dweck, head of insights and actuarial transformation at Verisk. Dweck cautions not to underestimate seemingly small gains. “It may seem like progress is approaching an asymptote. But if AI got to the point where it went from, say, 98% to 99% accuracy in a given domain, that is a massive swing,” he says. Today’s learnings will enable tomorrow’s breakthroughs.

Perfectionism may also be getting in the way of progress on many of today’s AI pilots. “Eighty percent accuracy could be very sufficient for some use cases,” says Bill Wang, FCAS, founder of Dirichlet Actuarial Consulting. This is significantly more reliable than a coin flip and likely multiples higher than if actuaries back tested over-under on something like commercial auto reserve adequacy for the past decade. “Even production use cases, such as policy administration, that essentially require 100% accuracy could derive large benefits from AI,” Wang says. “We may not trust AI to administer policies, but we can use it to create and run thousands of test cases and identify issues and edge cases more quickly than people can.” Ultimately, broad outperformance will put the G in AGI.

From outperformance may come prosperity. “There are not enough actuaries, especially for smaller organizations that have trouble competing on talent,” says Wang. “What happens when hundreds of insurance companies operate with the scale and efficiency of top-tier carriers?” Ten percent productivity growth may not be out of the question.

Age of reason

If human reason is the gold standard, early AI is trained on cubic zirconium — a shiny and (at times) convincing imitation, but one that lacks true substance. “Foundational models are limited to working with the outputs of human thought, which is what was written down, rather than the inputs, which are ideas and inspiration,” says Wang. “If you had the right experts spend five years in a room to train very specific models for insurance problems, it may cut significantly into the things we think are not possible today,” adds Dweck. Outside of science fiction, it is not possible to download peoples’ brains.

Actuaries, in particular, do not always excel at finding words to teach others their mysterious ways. “Planning is explicitly bringing implicit context out,” says Llaguno. “Software developers do this well. They define features, break those down into user stories, break those down into tasks to execute, and each has criteria and tests for what constitutes completion.” Llaguno points to the Breakthrough Method for Agile AI-driven Development as an AI-driven framework that can help with this, with AI agents conversationally assuming multiple stakeholder roles (e.g., developer, quality assurance) to collaboratively chart a plan of attack. In this virtuous cycle, AI helps actuaries help AI help actuaries solve problems.

However, it is possible to have the right plan for the wrong problem. “If we reach AGI, then AI would be the one setting the goals, because nothing would preclude it from identifying better goals than we can and figuring out better solutions,” says Dweck. Jessica Leong, FCAS, CEO of Octagram, has been impressed by some aspects of AI’s problem-solving. “I needed to generate a dataset that exhibited properties for which there was no closed-form solution. I asked ChatGPT to do it, it gave me an Excel [dataset], and sure enough it exhibited the correct properties,” she says. Narrowing an unbounded problem space into a manageable one that can be effectively solved feels like significant progress towards AGI.

The squishier the ask of AI, the less concrete the results become. “I gave ChatGPT a 1.7 million row fire dataset and asked it for interesting insights,” Leong says. “It gave me basic statistics such as the number of rows or the number of fires in Wisconsin. Even with reasonably more prompting, I couldn’t get it to provide anything I found surprising or interesting.” These are not unfamiliar problems to humans. “It is like hiring someone,” Leong says. “You want them to wow you with ideas, not just answer literally. In business, you can’t always tell someone the exact problem to solve.” While Leong’s math problem was unbounded, it was precisely defined; the data problem she provided was not.

At its worst, AI expands problem spaces. “The real test for AGI is two AIs talking to each other and whether they can replicate coherence,” says David Wright, ACAS, market solutions leader at Acrisure. “In my experience, they cannot. Conversationally, AI may seem human, but if the conversation goes long enough, it loses the plot and veers away from the original topic. The human is always the one carrying the cognitive load.” Without humans and guardrails, AI lives forever on the edge of spuriousness.

In contrast to many models’ mastery of correlations, causation lies at the heart of real-world problem-solving. In this regard, Wright sees Nadella’s ROI test as a flawed measure because humans are still the ones banging the cash register. “General intelligence would have to operate its own economy, distinct from ours,” says Wright. “It would use bitcoin, produce and buy energy, and work without humans. And then it would have to yield positive GDP.” Only then would AI clearly have caused the success.^[5]

Causal inference could be a starting point on the road to causation. Dorothy Andrews, PhD, ASA, who is the senior behavioral data scientist and actuary at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, recalls a study where a Google image classifier correctly identified a panda with high confidence, but when noise was added to the image, it misidentified it as a gibbon with near 100% confidence.^[6] “There was a time when the insurance industry referred to generalized linear models (GLMs) as black boxes, but they stopped calling them that once regulators understood them,” says Andrews. “There may come a day when we understand, or AI helps us understand, how a panda became a gibbon. We need to focus on unlocking these mysteries.” Once AI’s everyday mysteries are unlocked, AI can safely move on to the great mysteries of our time.

Dark ages

Actuaries could back themselves into an AGI corner if they are not careful. “AGI is becoming more possible because we are getting dumber while AI is getting smarter,” Andrews says. “There is ample evidence that GenAI is contributing to cognitive reversal because we are becoming too dependent on it.” For example, a recent MIT study showed lower brain engagement in ChatGPT users compared to control groups who relied only on search engines or their own ingenuity.^[7] The Dark Ages that bridged the classical age of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance provide a historical example of how intellectual stagnation and even barbarism can creep into society between times of advancement.^[8]

Even the most independent-minded actuary could be unwittingly dumbed down by AI hidden in plain sight. “Google is disrupting its own business by providing what some feel is a mediocre GenAI experience at the top of its page anytime you search something, and this comes at the expense of previously better information,” Dweck says. Self-disruption is generally viewed as a bold positive, and Google’s AI Overview was a “successful” gambit to preserve advertising revenue by preventing web traffic from going to alternatives such as ChatGPT. However, the summarizer is not necessarily fact-checking what it retrieves, and despite Google’s disclaimer that “AI responses may contain mistakes,” searchers are clicking through to source materials less often than when only given hits.^[9] By making it more difficult to unearth ground truth, AI makes it easier than ever to be wrong.

AI time-savers such as drafting and review also deprive actuaries of skill-building opportunities. “I wrote a lot of essays and papers growing up, and that is how I developed my writing skills,” says Dominic Lee, ACAS, founder of the Maverick Actuary content community. “That eventually evolved into short form on LinkedIn, and now I’ve gone back to long-form articles as well. The ability to structure your thoughts, create flow, and form clear conclusions is critical. Without that foundation, GenAI may end up replacing instead of enhancing your expertise. When people overlook journalistic diligence such as verifying sources and validating quotes, thought leadership and research become prone to hallucinations. But when used with judgment and care, GenAI can be a strong accelerant for actuaries who understand how to apply it strategically.” Over time, the number of such actuaries may decline unless AI tools are orchestrated with critical thinking in mind.

Skills once marginalized as undignified, such as memorization, can also be lifesavers in a pinch. “No one memorizes phone numbers anymore,” says Andrews. “What if our phones fell down a storm drain. Who would we call for help? It is great that we have moved from pen and paper to spreadsheets and beyond, but we are responsible for making sure it is giving us what we want. Actuaries should be masters of technology, not its slaves.” Andrews views the solution as human-centering technology, pointing to aviation as another profession that over-relied on technology to potentially disastrous consequence — but managed the risks effectively through techniques such as regular manual flight practice.^[10] “If we designed GenAI to complement rather than displace human cognition, we might train it to ask us, ‘what do you think?’ under certain circumstances,” she says. As long as actuaries continue asking themselves that question, they could be the ones to show their organizations out of AI’s Dark Ages and into an AI-enlightened Renaissance.

Space age

AI is trained to behave as if it is our best friend, but by the time we achieve AGI, it may well become our worst enemy. Anthropic researchers recently found that Claude Opus 4 resorted to blackmailing an executive (in a simulated environment) to avoid being shut down, while many other leading models behaved similarly.^[11] “AGI refers to a system with the kind of reasoning and judgment that allows it to understand context, make decisions, and adapt across different situations,” says Lee. “An example would be a machine that can question whether reserve assumptions are credible and adjust its approach in real time.” Such adjustments could be used for good, to sunset stale methodologies, or evil, to prioritize quarterly earnings over estimation accuracy. Such is the brave new world of choices awaiting actuaries.

Lee and Wright do not see rogue agents as imminent, but they acknowledge there could be more present than meets the eye. “I share the view of Dr. Eric Siegel, author and machine learning savant, who argues that we are far from that reality,” says Lee. “In Forbes, he suggests that today’s systems are powerful pattern recognizers rather than general thinkers and that true human-like discernment remains qualitative and undefined in engineering terms.”^[12] “Reality is incredibly complicated and we comprehend relatively little,” adds Wright. “In physics, there are explanations that are unsatisfying because we don’t have the information to test them. A superintelligence could appear ‘wrong’ because nobody can understand it.” AGI may already be as real as quantum gravity.^[13]

Transitioning from physics to biology, scientists have struggled to model the full complexity of the human brain. Estimates of one brain’s number of operations per second are in the quadrillions,^[14] dwarfing the (speculated) 50 trillion parameters in GPT 5.^[15] Foundational models represent a fraction of one brain — and there are many problems the more than 10,000 brains comprising the CAS have yet to solve. “The complexity of liability is orders of magnitude greater than, say, natural catastrophe risk,” says Wright. “Understanding it requires much more data — hundreds of times more fields per claim than we currently look at. AI tools can help, and interest in these fields will expand massively in the next decade.” AI need not model an entire cerebrum so long as it can effectively model wicked problems.

However, solving such problems may require an actuaries to become more comfortable conversing in one of AI’s native tongues — overfitting. Actuaries are trained on exams to take strong measures against overfitting models. However, “overfitting works sometimes,” says Wright. “Neural networks memorize data in sufficient complexity that overfitting does not matter as much as we think. There is compression of training data, but reality is infinitely complex. If we have enough features to model effective complexity, we can predict many cases.” Some may argue overfits struggle with “never before seen” black swans, but so have humans in predicting gray swans such as the COVID-19 pandemic or Great Recession — much less gray rhinos such as underwriting cycles. AGI may simply represent a preferential shift from underfitting to overfitting for actuaries.

Turning over the keys fully to AI may require a rethink of risk management. “Our economic institutions are partially built around the strengths and limitations of our own general intelligence,” Wright adds. “The economic institutions of AI or any other alien intelligence may be different, even cultural mechanisms such as requiring people to buy insurance — because they otherwise would not be inclined to do so.” Line of business definitions may also shift, reminiscent of auto versus product liability debates in the (still) early days of autonomous vehicles. There is already reportedly explosive demand for affirmative GenAI insurance, even as other policy forms already cover some of the risks.^[16] Actuaries should consider not just how AI applies to their work, but how their work applies to AI.

The future is now

Trust may be the biggest barrier AGI needs to surmount. “A chief actuary will typically not be looking at every single calculation,” Llaguno says. “They have a team around them they trust. Those teams have people around them they trust. When we are talking about billions of dollars at play in a critical industry like insurance, the trust component will persist for a very long time.” “The fulfillment of the human connection is difficult to replace,” adds Lee. “Imagine walking into a meeting room where every seat is empty and AGI avatars are attending virtually. That setup is questionable from a business perspective. Commercial insurance is an example of a relationship-driven business where trust matters. Many of us have experienced the frustration of being stuck in an automated phone menu that struggles with tone and context. Extending that dynamic to complex relationships might be problematic.” At the end of the day, research shows that people still prefer dealing with people unless their question is really embarrassing.^[17]

While trust gives actuaries a moat, they must not fill it with complacency. Lee has long been a proponent of actuaries branching into new domains, and he sees stark differences in how actuaries view their roles compared to other STEM professions. “Meta and Microsoft are delegating functional programming to AI and focusing roles more on imperative programming,” he observes. “Having recently been in the job market, I noticed that actuarial job descriptions often seek specific coding languages rather than programmatic thinking that can be generalized across languages, both manually and through AI. I think that puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other industries.” Wright has also observed reluctance to experiment: “There is a speed limit for new technology adoption based on how quickly people experiment with it,” he says. “If people experimented more, our collective knowledge would increase rapidly. We find out by trying things. Real general intelligence is sitting down and working on tough problems.”

Leong is open-minded on timelines over which AGI will emerge. “None of us knows how far away we are. When GenAI became mainstream, most of us were surprised,” she says. “I would not be shocked if another leap came out of nowhere. If AI can start delivering crazy insights I never thought of, that would be cool. I might even call that AGI.” Actuaries’ best bet to stay relevant against AGI may be to start delivering more crazy insights themselves.

Jim Weiss, FCAS, CSPA, is divisional chief risk officer for commercial and executive at Crum & Forster and is editor in chief for Actuarial Review.

^[1]              Magnificent Seven is the nickname for seven large technology stocks: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla.

^[2]              https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/sam-altman-says-agi-is-a-pointless-term-experts-agree.html.

^[3]              https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly17834524o.

^[4]              https://taylorandfrancis.com/knowledge/Medicine_and_healthcare/Psychiatry/General_intelligence/.

^[5]              https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-artificial-intelligence-impacts-us-labor-market.

^[6]              https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572.

^[7]              https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/.

^[8]              https://www.europeana.eu/en/stories/the-not-so-dark-middle-ages.

^[9]              https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/29/opinion_column_google_ai_ads/.

^[10]             https://medium.com/faa/the-dangers-of-overreliance-on-automation-5b7afb56ebdc.

^[11]             https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment.

^[12]             https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsiegel/2024/04/10/artificial-general-intelligence-is-pure-hype/.

^[13]             https://www.space.com/astronomy/does-quantum-gravity-exist-a-new-experiment-has-deepened-the-mystery.

^[14]             https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/how-much-computational-power-does-it-take-to-match-the-human-brain/.

^[15]             https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/gpt-5-openais-unified-intelligence-play-50fcfab6665b.

^[16]             https://www.carriermanagement.com/features/2025/10/08/280239.htm.

^[17]             https://news.osu.edu/when-consumers-would-prefer-a-chatbot-over-a-person/.

The post Four Futures for Actuaries in the Coming of AGI appeared first on Actuarial Review Magazine.