Talk:Actuary

message: We list the main disciplines as life and non life.  "Non life" is not a term really used often in the U.S. This wouldn't matter, except that I notice that this article is written in American English, so it seems a little inconsistent.  I'd consider the main U.S. disciplines as 1) life, 2) health, 3) pension, 4) property/casualty.  Lumping health together with P&C may not be the best choice from a U.S. perspective considering that the actuarial societies here actually group health with life.  Just food for thought.  Is there a consensus for the "perspective" we're going for, regionally?  I guess an "as global as possible" perspective works, but then I kind of wonder why we chose U.S. spelling throughout?  -KaJunl (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph discussing non-life begins "Non-life actuaries, also known as property and casualty or general insurance actuaries…" so I think the confusion, if any, is minimal. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question still stands as to why life (and maybe P&C as well) are being singled out over the others. Amolvaidya06 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't restrict the disciplines to two; we say that the disciplines fall into two categories. The Society of Actuaries started using "long-term" and "short-term" but even those aren't completely correct as workers comp is long term, yet workers comp was the very reason the Casualty Actuarial Society split off in 1914. Colloquially, I do not recall any actuaries with whom I've interacted, both US and foreign, who did not use this split (Life/Non-life or Life/P&C) where Life meant life, health, and pension and non-life/P&C means everything else. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disciplines 

message: Others mention the strange style of this page (feels like an ad for the profession), but what strikes me the most is the complete lack of mention of how AI/ML will change (nearly aliminate?) this profession.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebarcell (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't eliminate the profession any more than the computer replacing the slide rule did. The role will evolve as it has been over the past 150 or so years. Furthermore, that is speculation on your part. If you have well-written, reliable, and verifiable third-party sources which discuss that issue, suggest them here on the talk page and perhaps they can be included in the article. -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the changes in the field due to AI? 

message: It was time :). Adding this section to force auto-TOC ;) -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual Archiving

message: More food for thought.  Nowhere in opening sentences do we define actuary as someone who works with insurance products, instead we just say risk and uncertainty.  Has there been any discussion/consensus on bringing insurance into the definition?  Just because other types of professionals like quants are also dealing with quantifying risk and uncertainty, and it might be good to distinguish.  -KaJunl (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because restricting it to insurance is incorrect. While most actuarial analysis of risk happens in the context of insurance, which is clear from the second section (responsibilities), there are plenty of actuaries working outside of insurance as well. -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of actuary