Consumers Trust Robots For Surgery Over Savings, Research Finds (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article: Andy Maguire faces a challenge: tasked with upgrading HSBC's digital-banking systems, he has discovered that customers are twice as likely to trust a robot for heart surgery than for picking a savings account. "I do find it slightly odd," said the chief operating officer of Europe's largest bank, referring to its survey of more than 12,000 consumers in 11 countries published this week. Just 7 percent of respondents would trust a robot with their savings, versus the 14 percent willing to submit to a machine for heart surgery. "You think, gosh, one would've imagined the world had moved on further or was moving faster than that," Maguire said in an interview. While consumers tend naturally to trust medical professionals, the "bar is pretty high" for banks dealing with people's money, he said. Banks around the world are spending billions of dollars to bolster creaking computer systems in a push to ward off startup competitors and cut long-term operating expenses. But consumers and regulators are holding them to ever-higher standards of security and convenience, driving the cost of overhauls higher and potentially eroding any savings.

Comments

Maybe

[Daetrin]

Would that be because the hospital has no good ulterior motive to direct the robot to screw up your surgery, but a bank may very well have ulterior motive to direct your funds to an account that benefits them more than it does you?

Re:Maybe

[ShanghaiBill]

For heart surgery, you have to trust someone or something else. You can't do it yourself. So I would trust either a human or a robot, and choose whichever has the best track record.

But picking a savings account? Why can't I just do that for myself? I wouldn't trust a "robot**", but I would trust a human "financial advisor" even less, since they have no fiduciary duty to act in my best interest.

**Pet peeve: People using the word "robot" to describe a purely software program. No mechanical components are needed to recommend a savings account, so it is NOT a "robot". It is just a "program".

I agree

[sobachatina]

It's about motives.

I trust a surgeon is motivated to save me. A robot assisting him will therefore be working in his and my best interest.

A bank is not motivated to save me money- their whole purpose is to extract money from me. Therefore a robot assisting them cannot be trusted to have my best interests in mind.

Ever-higher standards of convenience?

[SeattleLawGuy]

If you call a bank for help with random consumer matter X, on average they are wrong about how their own system works maybe 30-60% of the time.

The only "higher standard of convenience" in the last few years is the ability to easily deposit checks via the average phone. Which is only useful for the few cases where people still send you checks.