Agent vs Agent - Ishaan Singh

If we're approaching a world where agent-to-agent interactions are the norm and agents routinely represent opposing parties in adversarial economic relationships (insurance vs claimant, insurer vs litigator, buyer vs seller), the moat becomes the agent's ability to outperform the other agent. The rational incentive is to find and exploit weaknesses in the opposing system. In the case of insurance vs claimant: a claimant's lawyer/agent evaluates injuries, collects medical records, pulls relevant case law and drafts a demand letter; the insurance carrier ingests that demand, assesses liability exposure and generates a counteroffer. Both agents reason over the same case evidence, statutes and policy language (likely some difference in prior settlements though within the same universe). Data and information advantages flatten; separation is whose agent reasons better under adversarial pressure. More precisely: whether one agent can identify systematic weaknesses in the other's reasoning in

saved by

• Maanav Khaitan