Actuarial Professionalism Considerations for Generative AI

Link: https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/professionalism-paper-generative-ai.pdf

Graphic:

Excerpt:

This paper describes the use and professionalism considerations for actuaries using
generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to provide actuarial services. GenAI generates text,
quantitative, or image content based on training data, typically using a large language model
(LLM). Examples of GenAI deployments include Open AI GPT, Google Gemini, Claude,
and Meta. GenAI transforms information acquired from training data into entirely new
content. In contrast, predictive AI models analyze historical quantitative data to forecast
future outcomes, functioning like traditional predictive statistical models.


Actuaries have a wide range of understanding of AI. We assume the reader is broadly
familiar with AI and AI model capabilities, but not necessarily a designer or expert user. In
this paper, the terms “GenAI,” “AI,” “AI model(s),” and “AI tool(s)” are used interchangeably.
This paper covers the professionalism fundamentals of using GenAI and only briefly
discusses designing, building, and customizing GenAI systems. This paper focuses on
actuaries using GenAI to support actuarial conclusions, not on minor incidental use of AI
that duplicates the function of tools such as plug-ins, co-pilots, spreadsheets, internet search
engines, or writing aids.


GenAI is a recent development, but the actuarial professionalism framework helps actuaries
use GenAI appropriately: the Code of Professional Conduct, the Qualification Standards
for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States (USQS), and the
actuarial standards of practice (ASOPs). Although ASOP No. 23, Data Quality; No. 41,
Actuarial Communications; and No. 56, Modeling, were developed before GenAI was widely
available, each applies in situations when GenAI may now be used. The following discussion
comments on these topics, focusing extensively on the application of ASOP No. 56, which
provides guidance for actuaries when they are designing, developing, selecting, modifying,
using, reviewing, or evaluating models. GenAI is a model; thus ASOP No. 56 applies.


The paper explores use cases and addresses conventional applications, including quantitative
and qualitative analysis, as of mid-2024, rather than anticipating novel uses or combinations
of applications. AI tools change quickly, so the paper focuses on principles rather than
the technology. The scope of this paper does not include explaining how AI models are
structured or function, nor does it offer specific guidelines on AI tools or use by the actuary
in professional settings. Given the rapid rate of change within this space, the paper makes no
predictions about the rapidly evolving technology, nor does it speculate on future challenges
to professionalism.

Author(s): Committee on Professional Responsibility of the American Academy of Actuaries

Committee on Professional
Responsibility
Geoffrey C. Sandler, Chairperson
Brian Donovan
Richard Goehring
Laura Maxwell
Shawn Parks
Matthew Wininger
Kathleen Wong
Yukki Yeung
Paul Zeisler
Melissa Zrelack

Artificial Intelligence Task Force
Prem Boinpally
Laura Maxwell
Shawn Parks
Fei Wang
Matt Wininger
Kathy Wong
Yukki Yeung

Publication Date: September 2024

Publication Site: American Academy of Actuaries

A chance to enter a new era of financial transparency and awareness for public pension plans

Link: https://reason.org/commentary/a-chance-to-enter-a-new-era-of-financial-transparency-and-awareness-for-public-pension-plans/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

On Feb. 11, the Actuarial Standards Board issued a revised Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 4, effective February 15, 2023. The rollout has been low-key. The announcement says:

“Notable changes made to the existing 2013 version include expanding the scope to clarify the application of the standard when the actuary selects an output smoothing method and when an assumption or method is not selected by the actuary.”

But this description obscures a significant new required disclosure, one which follows years of controversy and acrimony within and among actuaries and the public pension plan community at large.  The requirement was the overwhelming focus during the drafting and comment period.     

The new required disclosure reflects economic reality better than any currently required number.

Author(s): Larry Pollack

Publication Date: 25 Mar 2022

Publication Site: Reason

Morning with Meep – ASOP 56 – Modeling

Description:

I take a look at the Actuarial Standard of Practice 56: Modeling — in effect as of October 2020.

Links: Keep Up With the Standards: On ASOP 56, Modeling

https://www.soa.org/sections/modeling/modeling-newsletter/2021/april/mp-2021-04-campbell/

ASOP 56: Modeling

http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/asops/modeling-3/

Author(s): Mary Pat Campbell

Publication Date: 3 May 2021

Publication Site: Meep’s Math Matters at Youtube

Keep Up With the Standards: On ASOP 56, Modeling

Link: https://www.soa.org/sections/modeling/modeling-newsletter/2021/april/mp-2021-04-campbell/

Excerpt:


If nothing else, having a checklist to go through while working on modeling can help you make sure you don’t miss anything. Hey, ASB, make some handy-dandy sticky note checklists we can stick on our monitors to ask us:

3.1 Does our model meet the intended purpose?

3.2 Do we understand the model, especially any weaknesses and limitations?

3.3 Are we relying on data or other information supplied by others?

3.4 Are we relying on models developed by others?

3.5 Are we relying on experts in the development of the model?

3.6 Have we evaluated and mitigated model risk?

3.7 Have we appropriately documented the model?

Author(s): Mary Pat Campbell

Publication Date: April 2021

Publication Site: The Modeling Platform at the Society of Actuaries

Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline: 2020 Annual Report

Link: http://www.abcdboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ABCD-Annual-2020.pdf

Excerpt:

There were 47 inquiries in process with the ABCD during 2020, based on either complaints or adverse information.
Twenty-four of these were disposed of during 2020.

….

The ABCD members responded to 127 requests for guidance during 2020.

Publication Date: February 2021

Publication Site: Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline