[bob1029]

Anything that can't be explained and iterated deterministically is too risky for the business of declining financial transactions.

Human analysts need to be able to explain to compliance in a single 5 minute email why a specific transaction was declined, and most importantly, what could have been done differently to avoid the adverse decision.

Fixing one problem with ML often creates two new problems that aren't quite obvious yet. SQL tends to have fewer surprises with regard to regressions and unexpected side effects as things change over time.

[epgui]

In my experience, Visa support can’t tell me why my legitimate transaction was tagged as fraudulent, other than to say it triggered an AI thing. They also can’t tweak the settings like they used to do, but they can manually allow specific transactions one by one on an ad hoc basis.

[hansvm]

Recently, they've stopped even being able to allow specific transactions through for me. They can tag the flagged transaction as legitimate and hope the AI picks up on that, but that hasn't worked once in the last ~15 calls for me. I've just stopped trying to use Visa as my primary card online, a habit that bled into in-person purchases as well.

[saagarjha]

I assume that this option is unlocked once you enter litigation against the company.

[nswango]

Umm no, they submit thousands of random pages of business communication and system spec in discovery. This does not include the source code of their algorithm, which in any case if not stored in any form which can be recreated and shared. If you pay a lawyer a million bucks to read them all it would say that they don't know how the algo works. At the same time they offer you low four digits to make the case go away, if you have a case. If you don't have a valid case at all, they rapidly spend $250,000 on filings and motions which you would have to spend $100,000 to stay in the game.

[fny]

Interpretable models can create rules like what you see.