Glassdoor: claims adjusters are the most anti-AI workers in the US

Glassdoor research cited by Wired found that insurance claims adjusters are the most anti-AI profession in the US workforce: claims adjusters who mention AI in their job reviews are critical of it 98 percent of the time, the highest share of any profession measured. Representative reviews on the platform read "Pushing AI to the point that you are asking humans not to use their thoughts and brains is such a turn off," "Stop forcing AI onto everyone," and "The AI apps this company uses are all trash." Glassdoor senior economist Chris Martin says he did a double take when he saw the results, then concluded the profession is in the midst of a reckoning.

Adjusters describe AI creating extra work rather than removing it. Ahmad Jackson worked in the claims department of a major insurance company that began using AI for initial loss reporting, the step where a claim is set up and information is first gathered from a policyholder. Instead of streamlining simple claims, Jackson says he and other adjusters faced a sudden influx of misclassified claims that needed rerouting to the correct department, plus AI-driven hallucinations in claims summaries; when he passed those errors on to claimants or their attorneys, he took the resulting anger himself. He quit and moved to a different insurance carrier. "It's getting things wrong," he says of the AI, "and it's implementing more work onto the adjusters." Geoffrey Conrad, a claims executive in Mobile, Alabama, describes "an AI fatigue": "We're pretty much exhausted as far as the amount of AI being shoved down our throats."

The complaints track a real contraction in the profession. A 2024 Bureau of Labor Statistics outlook projected the number of US claims adjusters would fall by 18,900, or 5 percent, over the coming decade, citing technology as a major driver. The decline has moved faster than that projection: BLS data show sector employment dropped 21 percent between May 2025 and May 2026, and Glassdoor reports entry-level postings are down 50 percent since 2025. AI startups such as Liberate and Pace have raised, in the article's wording, "millions of dollars" on promises to reinvent insurance, while insurers scale AI to handle a growing share of claims: chatbots that take a claim instead of a person, AI that estimates damage from submitted photos or video instead of an in-person inspection, and AI summarization of long medical records.

Lemonade is furthest along that path. Founded in 2015 on a promise to replace bureaucracy with "bots and machine learning," the insurer says its chatbot AI Jim handled initial claim reports 96 percent of the time by the end of last year, with automation handling roughly 55 percent of all claims at the company overall; those figures are Lemonade's own and are not stated to apply industry-wide. A Lemonade spokesperson, Paul Staats, tells Wired that "AI is going to impact many jobs and threaten many incumbents in insurance and the economy," while arguing that automation lets employees put their "empathy, care, and expertise on the most complex claims," and that Glassdoor's report "should be taken seriously across the industry." State Farm representative Justin Tomczak says the company's goal is to give agents and employees "better tools so they can spend more time doing what matters most: helping customers," a framing Wired contrasts with Lemonade's more AI-forward approach.

Sandy Avina, a claims adjuster turned insurance-industry consultant, says adjusters do not have "a lot of faith in the output": a smudged document from an attorney, or a missing point in an AI-generated medical summary, can produce a hallucination that leads to a wrong payout, and customers who notice the resulting confusion tend to blame the adjuster rather than the software. Martin says Glassdoor's data show reviews turn more anti-AI as workers sense layoffs coming, and also when they feel a subpar AI product is being forced on them or on their clients. Conrad, who lost his own house to fire twenty-five years before he entered the industry, says a good adjuster combines empathy with getting the policyholder the most money possible, and that he would have "lost my mind" back then to learn an estimate would be generated from photographs alone rather than a person confirming his family was safe. "AI is just a tool," he says. "It should never be given the keys."

Key facts

Glassdoor research finds claims adjusters' AI-related job reviews are negative 98 percent of the time, the highest share of any US profession measured.
BLS data show sector employment fell 21 percent between May 2025 and May 2026, faster than a 2024 BLS outlook that projected an 18,900-job, 5 percent decline over the following decade; entry-level postings are down 50 percent since 2025.
Adjuster Ahmad Jackson says AI used for initial loss reporting produced misclassified claims and hallucinated claims summaries that increased his workload until he changed employers.
Lemonade's chatbot AI Jim handled initial claim reports 96 percent of the time and automation handled roughly 55 percent of all Lemonade claims by the end of last year, figures that are not stated to apply industry-wide.
Consultant Sandy Avina and executive Geoffrey Conrad describe hallucinated AI summaries producing wrong payouts, with customers blaming the human adjuster rather than the software.

Why it matters

Most coverage of AI backlash is workplace sentiment in the abstract. Here Glassdoor supplies a specific, ranked data point: claims adjusters are the single most anti-AI profession it measured, at 98 percent negative, and that sentiment lines up with hard labor numbers rather than standing apart from them. A 2024 BLS decade-long projection of a 5 percent decline has already been overtaken by a 21 percent year-on-year drop and a 50 percent fall in entry-level postings, which is the kind of concrete before-and-after evidence that op-eds about AI anxiety usually lack.

Who it affects

Claims adjusters and executives at insurance carriers, most concretely Ahmad Jackson, Geoffrey Conrad and Sandy Avina; insurers deploying AI at different speeds, from Lemonade's chatbot-first model to State Farm's stated human-plus-tool approach; AI startups such as Liberate and Pace building products for the sector; and policyholders, whose claims and payouts are the output AI is now involved in producing.

How to use it

The article maps where AI already sits in the claims process: chatbots taking initial loss reports instead of a person, AI estimating repair or replacement costs from submitted photos or video instead of an in-person inspection, and AI summarizing long medical records to pull out key details. For anyone evaluating an insurer's AI, the useful markers named here are Lemonade's own reported 96 percent automated intake and 55 percent fully automated claims; both are Lemonade-specific and not shown to generalize to the industry.

How solid is it

The reporting combines a named, on-record Glassdoor statistic with named sources on both sides: adjusters and an executive describing harm, and named company spokespeople for Lemonade and State Farm responding. The BLS figures are attributed to specific reports and date ranges. The source does not give a sample size, methodology, or time window for the underlying Glassdoor research beyond the percentages quoted, and does not put a dollar figure on how much Liberate and Pace have raised.

Risks and caveats

The harms described are concrete but anecdotal at the individual level: hallucinated claims summaries and misclassified claims that adjusters then have to fix, with customers frequently blaming the adjuster rather than the AI that caused the error. Lemonade's 96 percent and 55 percent figures describe Lemonade only and should not be read as an industry average. The article does not name the major insurer Ahmad Jackson worked for or the carrier he moved to, which limits how far his account can be verified against a specific company's practices.

“AI is just a tool. It should never be given the keys.”

— Geoffrey Conrad, claims executive, Mobile, Alabama