You Know Who Really Hates AI? Insurance Claims Adjusters
Insurance claims adjusters have emerged as the most vocal critics of artificial intelligence among American workers, according to research from Glassdoor. The job-review site found that 98 percent of claims adjusters who mention AI in their posts do so critically, with many describing frustration at being forced to use error-prone tools that create extra work rather than reducing it. Adjusters report having to fix AI-driven mistakes, such as misclassified claims and hallucinated details in claims summaries, often bearing the anger of policyholders when things go wrong. The trend coincides with a sharp contraction in the profession, raising concerns that AI is displacing jobs rather than simply assisting them.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show employment in the sector fell 21 percent between May 2025 and May 2026, while entry-level postings have dropped 50 percent since 2025. Insurers and AI startups such as Liberate, Pace and Lemonade have increasingly automated tasks including initial claim filing, damage assessment from photos, and medical record summarisation; Lemonade's chatbot reportedly handled 96 percent of initial reports and automation covered around 55 percent of claims by the end of last year. While some firms, such as State Farm, insist human judgement remains essential alongside AI, adjusters like Ahmad Jackson describe quitting jobs after AI errors increased their workload, fuelling fears that they are effectively training the systems set to replace them.
- Claims adjusters are the most AI-critical US workers, Glassdoor finds
- AI errors create extra work and client anger for adjusters
- Adjuster jobs fell 21% in a year amid rising AI automation
New here? Start with this
Insurance claims adjusters investigate claims and help insurers decide what they should pay. Their work can involve checking documents, assessing damage and speaking with policyholders who are seeking compensation.
Insurers are introducing AI tools to handle tasks such as taking initial reports, assessing damage from photos and summarising medical records. Some companies say people remain essential for decisions that need judgement, while workers have reported having to correct mistakes made by the tools.
The debate matters because adjuster jobs have been shrinking as automation spreads. It raises questions about how insurers balance efficiency with accurate decisions and human support for people making claims.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
AI can handle routine intake and document review quickly, potentially speeding up claims and lowering costs for insurers and policyholders. If human adjusters retain oversight for complex or disputed cases, automation could reduce repetitive work while preserving the judgement needed to resolve difficult claims.
The case against
Claims decisions can affect people facing substantial losses, so errors in automated summaries or assessments may cause real harm and leave adjusters to repair mistakes and manage policyholders’ frustration. Falling employment and entry-level opportunities raise a further concern: automation may displace skilled workers and weaken the human expertise needed to catch errors, especially if staff are expected to train systems that later replace them.