A new analysis of employee sentiment suggests the answer to “You Know Who Really Hates AI” may be insurance claims adjusters. Of the Glassdoor reviews from adjusters that mentioned artificial intelligence, 98 percent expressed negative views. The finding underscores a growing tension between the insurance industry’s push to automate claims processing and the workers who fear their jobs are at risk.

What You Need to Know

Insurance claims adjusters are among the most vocal opponents of AI in the workplace. A near-unanimous 98 percent of their Glassdoor reviews mentioning AI are negative. The backlash reflects concerns over job displacement, algorithmic oversight and reduced human judgment in decision-making. Carriers are adopting AI tools faster than workers can adapt, creating a cultural clash inside the industry.

The Numbers Behind the Backlash

Glassdoor, a platform where employees anonymously rate their employers, provided the raw data for this sentiment snapshot. Researchers combed through hundreds of reviews from insurance claims adjusters that mentioned terms such as “AI” or “artificial intelligence.” The result was a stark uniformity of opinion. Adjusters described AI as a threat to their autonomy, a source of constant surveillance and a tool that prioritizes speed over accuracy.

Common complaints included:

  • Loss of professional autonomy: Adjusters reported that AI systems override their judgment on claim decisions they had previously made independently.
  • Increased performance monitoring: Many said AI is used to track their every keystroke, creating a high-pressure environment with little trust.
  • Fear of job elimination: A significant number believed AI will eventually replace their roles entirely, reducing the workforce to a handful of overseers.

Why Adjusters Are Skeptical

The skepticism among Insurance Claims Adjusters Of various companies is not unfounded. The insurance industry has been investing heavily in AI for tasks such as photo-based damage estimation, fraud detection and even automated claim settlement. These tools can process claims in minutes rather than days. But adjusters argue that AI lacks the nuance needed for complex cases, such as those involving disputed liability or subjective pain-and-suffering evaluations.

“AI is just a tool,” one adjuster told WIRED. “It should never be allowed to make final decisions.” The comment reflects a broader anxiety that management views AI as a cost-cutting lever rather than a support system. When algorithms flag claims for review, adjusters feel they are being second-guessed by a machine they cannot argue with.

Why This Matters

The resistance from claims adjusters poses a practical problem for insurers. If the workforce that must use AI tools actively resents them, adoption will stall or yield poor results. High turnover among adjusters already strains claim operations. Adding AI-related dissatisfaction could worsen retention. More broadly, the data signals that successful AI deployment requires more than just accurate algorithms. It demands cultural change, transparency and a clear message that technology augments rather than replaces human expertise. Without those elements, the industry risks investing in systems that its own employees will undermine.

Wider Implications for the Workforce

The adjuster backlash is part of a larger pattern across knowledge-work industries. From customer service to legal research, workers whose jobs involve case-by-case judgment are pushing back against automated decision-making. The 98 percent negativity rate from adjusters is extreme but not unique. Companies rolling out AI in any field should study this example. Ignoring frontline sentiment can create costly friction, as seen in the insurance sector, where the push for efficiency is colliding with human resistance.