Delta Air assures US lawmakers it will not personalize fares using AI
Delta said it has not used AI to set personalized prices but previously said it plans to deploy AI-based revenue management technology across 20% of its domestic network by the end of 2025 in partnership with Fetcherr, an AI pricing company. "There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data," Delta told the senators in a letter on Friday, seen by Reuters. "Our ticket pricing never takes into account personal data." Senators praised Delta's commitment not to use AI for personal pricing but expressed many questions and want more details about what data Delta is collecting to set prices. "Delta is telling their investors one thing, and then turning around and telling the public another," Gallego said. "If Delta is in fact using aggregated instead of individualized data, that is welcome news." Delta declined comment on Gallego's statement. The senators cited a comment in December by Delta President Glen Hauenstein that the carrier's AI price-setting technology is capable of setting fares based on a prediction of "the amount people are willing to pay for the premium products related to the base fares." Last week, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said using AI to set ticket prices could hurt consumer trust. "This is not about bait and switch. This is not about tricking," Isom said on an earnings call, adding "talk about using AI in that way, I don't think it's appropriate. And certainly from American, it's not something we will do." Democratic lawmakers Greg Casar and Rashida Tlaib last week introduced legislation to bar companies from using AI to set prices or wages based on Americans' personal data and would specifically ban airlines raising individual prices after seeing a search for a family obituary. They cited a Federal Trade Commission staff report in January that found "retailers frequently use people's personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services -- from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage." The FTC cited a hypothetical example of a consumer profiled as a new parent who could intentionally be shown higher-priced baby thermometers and collect behavioral details to forecast a customer's state of mind.
Delta said airlines have used dynamic pricing for more than three decades, in which pricing fluctuates based on a variety of factors like overall customer demand, fuel prices and competition, but not a specific consumer's personal information. "Given the tens of millions of fares and hundreds of thousands of routes for sale at any given time, the use of new technology like AI promises to streamline the process by which we analyze existing data and the speed and scale at which we can respond to changing market dynamics," Delta's letter said.
(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Jane St: How an options trader smelt a rat when others raised a toast
TCS job cuts may not stop at 12,000; its bench policy threatens more
Unlisted dreams, listed disappointments? NSDL's IPO leaves pre-IPO investors riled.
Regulators promote exchanges; can they stifle one? Watch IEX
Did Meesho's Valmo really deliver a knockout punch to e-commerce logistics?
Sebi's settlement with market intermediaries: More mystery than transparency?
Trump tantrum: Check the Indian pulse of your portfolio. 71 stocks from 5 sectors for whom Trump may not even be noise
F&O Radar| Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty to gain from Theta decay
Stock Radar: PI Industries stock showing signs of momentum; takes support above 50-DEMA – time to buy?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Russia is not Iran, India can't cancel oil imports on U.S. demand: experts
India cannot cancel oil imports from Russia as it did six years ago with Iran and Venezuela, given the difference in the scale and importance of the relationship, said experts, warning that the U.S.'s actions against India were damaging the relationship built over decades. In 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump had in his first term, demanded that India 'zero out' its oil imports from Iran and Venezuela. India had eventually complied with the demand before the deadline in May 2019. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order levying a 25% penalty on top of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, unless India cut energy purchases from Russia, which currently make up more than 35% of its oil imports. The penalty would kick in by August 27 unless Russia stops the war in Ukraine. The threat is expected to add pressure on both India and Russia ahead of a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir Putin next week, and the upcoming visit by Mr. Putin to India for the annual summit with Mr. Modi. 'At the global level, Russia is not Iran,' former Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Arun Singh told The Hindu in an interview. 'We want Russia, as one of the major powers in the international context, to be an important partner of India, and there's a memory in India of Russia in the past having provided political support [and] ...defence technology that nobody else was willing to provide,' he added, also warning that if India were to cave in to Mr. Trump's demands, this would only increase the U.S.'s appetite to demand more concessions from India. According to scholar Brahma Chellaney, the U.S. move on Russian oil is a cover to strong-arm India into accepting trading terms the U.S. wants, including market access for agricultural products. '[Mr.] Trump is weaponising Russian oil purchases to force a largely one-sided trade deal on India,' said Mr. Chellaney, who is a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin. He pointed out that technically, the U.S. has not sanctioned Russian oil, nor has it subscribed to the European Union's latest price cap on it. Mr. Trump had also not penalised China, which is the world's largest importer of Russian oil. 'Cutting Indian purchases of Russian oil is unlikely to make him back off. He wants a trade deal on his terms,' Mr. Chellaney added. Until recently, India imported about 2 million barrels a day, and is the second largest importer of Russian oil. Mr. Singh pointed to the past 25 years as a period of building trust between the two countries, and a steady improvement in relations after the previous era, where India had seen the U.S. as a 'coercive and an unreliable partner' for its backing of Pakistan, the 1971 Bangladesh War intervention, and the 1998 sanctions on India for its nuclear tests. Since 2008, after the U.S. helped India win exemptions at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group for doing nuclear trade, he said this perception seriously changed. He also said that the U.S. had supplied drones and winter clothing to support Indian forces during the India-China stand-off at the Line of Actual Control at 'short notice'. 'But because of what President Trump has done in India, there's a resurrection of the old and bitter memories of the U.S.,' Mr. Singh who is a Senior Fellow at Delhi-based Carnegie India and a Professor at Ashoka University. 'So President Trump and the U.S. may feel that they are putting some penalties on India, high tariffs, I would say that they are putting high tariffs and penalties, less on India, and more on the U.S.-India relationship. It will take some time for the relationship to come out from this shock that has been generated', he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Wall Street and AI startups are fighting over entry-level quants
At a rooftop bar on Manhattan's Lower East Side, roughly 150 quant researchers met with employees at the artificial-intelligence startup Anthropic who implored them to consider a life away from Wall Street. Over plates of potstickers and popcorn chicken, they rubbed shoulders at the June mixer with former hedge fund quants-turned-Silicon Valley evangelists who encouraged them to apply for jobs at Anthropic, according to the company. This month, the San Francisco-based firm is going global with another quant 'social hour' in London. The recruiting campaign mirrors similar efforts by rivals OpenAI and Perplexity AI. And a number of leading figures in the AI industry already come with quant backgrounds, including OpenAI Chief Research Officer Mark Chen and Perplexity co-founder Johnny Ho. But quants lured by dreams of building AI models and tools instead of profit-seeking algorithms for traders — often for lofty pay and benefits comparable to the world of finance — also face the risk of disappointment. 'The pitch is 'come and build the machine god,'' said Agustin Lebron, a former Jane Street trader who now works at a systematic trading startup. 'But I suspect that, for a lot of those people, it'll end up being 'come and figure out how to make people buy things from ads.'' Still, the AI industry's competition with finance is noticeably heating up. For Wall Street, it's an unwelcome wrinkle in an already-brutal war for quant talent. Unlike financial firms, AI companies aren't covered by the non-competition agreements that keep many of these researchers from easily switching jobs. 'I'd estimate we've seen a 40–50% increase over the past 12–18 months in AI-native and software companies specifically asking for talent with quantitative finance backgrounds,' tech recruiter Mike Doonan said. Entry-level quants are eligible for base salaries of as much as $300,000, based on external job listings, but that doesn't include what can be considerable bonus targets. AI firms today can offer comparable base salaries, with compensation packages bolstered with equity rather than bonuses. Next Big Thing According to an analysis of LinkedIn announcements, social media posts and company news sites conducted by employment tracking company Live Data Technologies, firms including Jane Street and Citadel Securities have lost quants to AI firms over the past year. Aron Thomas and Charles Guo both left Jane Street earlier this year to join Anthropic. In an interview, they praised their former firm as a great place to work but said they were drawn to the excitement of being part of the next big thing. 'It became very clear quite quickly that AI is going to change a lot of things and drive many changes in the world, and it seemed pretty important to be involved,' said Guo. Jane Street declined to comment for this story. Citadel also declined to comment on personnel matters, but pointed to growing interest in the firm's own internship program, which saw 108,000 applicants for this summer, up 20% from last year. While OpenAI also declined to comment, its chief executive officer Sam Altman touted quant-focused recruitment events in an April post on X. Noam Brown, an ex-quant and top researcher at the company, weighed in, noting that recruits don't need to take a pay cut anymore. Perplexity's Ho said the company pays $200,000 base salaries but makes up the difference somewhat with equity. He stressed that the firm's pitch to quants isn't mainly financial, though. Instead, it was the opportunity to take on 'new and more exciting challenges,' said Ho, who previously worked at Tower Research Capital. Quant Skills Quants are uniquely adept at minimizing latency in algorithms, which makes them desirable to AI developers competing to ensure users get responses as quickly as possible from the large language models that power generative AI tools such as ChatGPT. And much like AI research, quantitative trading involves sifting through vast amounts of unstructured data. What's more, firms like Anthropic and Perplexity are pushing more into financial services offerings. For its part, Anthropic said in a statement that it's after 'the rigorous analytical thinking and empirical research methods' that quants possess. Such skills have 'substantial overlap with the technical challenges of developing safer and more capable AI systems,' the company said, adding that it's going to keep hiring people with specialized backgrounds as it scales. Quant firms have occasionally sued employees departing for rivals. But litigation is unlikely for quants moving to AI labs, which don't directly compete with financial firms. Moreover, California — where most big AI companies are based — largely prohibits non-competition agreements. Ho said Wall Street has hurt itself with non-competes. 'They are becoming more and more secretive,' he said. There are signs that Wall Street is attempting to hit back against the poaching attempts of AI companies. For example, Iain Dunning, who oversees AI at Hudson River Trading, posted on X in May: 'Are you a researcher at OAI/Anthropic/etc and tired of overhiring, the orgchart chaos, the lowered talent bar, want to move to NYC, or just want to do something different?'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Is Donald Trump winning on economic policy, or just shifting the rules?
Six months into his second term, it is fair to say that US President Donald Trump has swept the board when it comes to economic policy — at least by the standards he set for himself. In fact, he has imposed his will to a degree no other post-World War II President, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, has been able to achieve. For starters, Mr Trump got his One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed, despite a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and credible projections that his signature tax and spending package will add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the coming decade. And the southern US border is now more tightly controlled than it has been in decades. On tariffs in particular, Mr Trump got what he wanted. Europe and Japan effectively capitulated — agreeing to eliminate their own trade barriers while accepting a 15 per cent US tariff on their exports. Given these humiliating terms, it was more than a little absurd to see European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hail the deal as a success simply because Mr Trump backed down from his initial threat of a 30 per cent tariff. Both the European Union and Japan also committed to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US economy, with Mr Trump exerting significant influence over where that money would be directed. His self-styled 'Tariff Man' persona clearly rattled world leaders, many of whom failed to recognise that his threats were unsustainable in the long run. In retrospect, they would have been better off calling his bluff. While European policymakers were busy mitigating the impact of American tariff threats, Mr Trump pushed through legislation aimed at bringing cryptocurrencies into the mainstream financial system with minimal oversight. Astonishingly, despite the Trump family's multi-billion-dollar crypto holdings, Congress has shown little interest in investigating the President's glaring conflict of interest. To be sure, the GENIUS Act does contain some worthwhile ideas. One provision, for example, requires that stablecoins — cryptocurrencies pegged to a traditional currency or commodity, usually the US dollar — be backed by safe, liquid assets. But overall, instead of laying out clear guidelines for taming the crypto Wild West, the GENIUS Act amounts to little more than a regulatory skeleton. As several critics have noted, Mr Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the US did not have a central bank. At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability, and frequent bank runs. That said, some criticisms may be overstated, as today's leading issuers are generally more transparent and better capitalised than their nineteenth-century counterparts. Fortunately, the US economy has remained resilient amid the uncertainty and chaos unleashed by Mr Trump's tariff war. Although growth appears to be slowing, and the July jobs report was soft — a hard reality that Mr Trump's firing of the technocrat in charge of producing the data will not change — second-quarter data show that the country is not yet in a recession. Likewise, higher tariffs have not yet triggered a surge in domestic inflation, and the US is on track to collect $300 billion in tariff revenue in 2025. So far, importers have been reluctant to pass those costs on to consumers, but that could change if the current tariff war ever winds down. Some analysts have even argued that the apparent success of Mr Trump's heterodox policies proves that conventional economic models are wrong. I doubt that, though the jury is still out. This short-term optimism, however, overlooks long-term consequences. While some of former President Joe Biden's policies were damaging, numerous economists have warned that Mr Trump's actions could prove devastating to American institutions and the global economic order. Most critically, the rule of law would be severely weakened if the expanded presidential powers Mr Trump has claimed are allowed to become permanent. A big test is coming if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that he lacks authority to impose tariffs without Congress's approval. If they stand, Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs may have long-term effects on US growth. The rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate Mr Trump's protectionist policies indefinitely. If he starts to look weak for any reason, expect foreign governments to retaliate with sweeping tariffs of their own. The Big Beautiful Bill could compound the damage, triggering a cycle of higher interest rates, rising inflation, and financial repression. Still, we should give Mr Trump his due and acknowledge that his second presidency is off to a far stronger start than almost anyone — aside from Mr Trump himself and his most fervent acolytes — could imagine six months ago. We should not be surprised by whatever comes next — and that might be the scariest part. ©Project Syndicate, 2025
