Imagine: You are standing in the checkout line with your credit card in hand after buying groceries and the terminal flashes red and says "Card declined". You try again and still the same result. You are embarrassed at this point, so you pull out another card. You know you have got plenty of money in your account, but an AI agent somewhere thinks otherwise. Or worse, it thinks you are doing fraud, so it didn't approve any of your transactions. This is happening to so many people every day as payment processors are deploying increasingly autonomous AI systems that make split-second decisions about your money. AI agents that are responsible for processing your payments are getting really smart, fast and autonomous. However, they are also making mistakes that cost billions and frustrate customers at unprecedented scale. I've spent the last few years deep in the payments infrastructure world, and I'm watching an industry grapple with a tech that is simultaneously essential and terrifying. This is the paradox of agentic AI in payments. And if left unsolved, the entire foundation of e-commerce is at risk. The $200 Billion Problem Nobody's Talking About Global payment fraud losses are projected to exceed $200 billion by 2026 as per Juniper Research. At the same time, legitimate transactions that are incorrectly flagged as fraud (false positives) cost merchants an estimated $443 billion annually (source). That is more than double the actual fraud loss. Juniper Research source We are losing twice as much money from being too careful as compared to the losses to actual criminals. Studies like these show that 33% of customers who have a legit transaction declined, will not use that payment method with that merchant ever again. One false positive, one AI mistake and the bank has lost that customer for life. these This is the paradigm shift every payment company has to deal with these days. They block too many transactions, and they hemorrhage revenue and trust. But blocking too few and that's a field day for fraudsters. Traditional rule-based systems cannot handle this complexity anymore. The fraud patterns are too sophisticated, volumes too high and the speed requirements are too demanding. This is where agentic AI shines. Autonomous systems can make thousands of decisions per second, learn from patterns humans would never stop and adapt to new fraud tactics in real-time. But here's where it gets dangerous. Why Payments Are the Worst Possible Place to Deploy Autonomous AI Deploying Agentic AI in payments is like playing chess with real money, where every move happens in milliseconds and you are playing against opponents who study every decision. First: Immediacy and Finality After each card swipe, the AI agent has about 200-300 milliseconds, at best, to make a decision (see Visa’s documentation for the timeline of the decision window in payments). And once the decision is made, especially involving money movement, reversing it is extremely difficult. documentation Compare this to a content recommendation algorithm where a bad suggestion means someone watches a mediocre movie. This is real money movement which has real consequences. Second: Every Transaction is High Stakes An AI agent might think that a $20 transaction is trivial and reject it because it sensed fraud. But that might mean a declined transaction at a pharmacy counter which results in the customer not being able to buy their medication. Unlike systems where errors can be averaged out, every payment decision is a high-value event for someone. Third: Arms Race Payments space is one of the most adversarial environments possible. Fraudsters actively study AI behavior patterns, test card numbers at scale using ML to identify weaknesses in the fraud detection systems. They are not just attacking the system, they attack AI itself. And they are getting better at it every day. Fourth: The Regulatory Gauntlet Payments industry is also one of the most heavily regulated sectors. It is not enough to say to regulators that "AI blocked someone's rent but neural network detected fraud". There are anti-money laundering laws, KYC requirements, data privacy requirements like GDPR and industry standards like PCI-DSS. Every AI decision needs to be explainable, auditable and defensible. Companies cannot afford to not understand the decisions AI made or there is a legal liability chaos waiting to happen that would cost millions in fines and settlements. GDPR PCI-DSS The Triad of Risk: A System Designed to Fail This problem is wickedly complex because the three main risks in payments are fundamentally interconnected in ways that make optimization nearly impossible. False Positives hurt customer experience and revenue. Fraud directly destroys value through stolen money. Reducing false positives by making AI less aggressive will make fraud rate go up. Cracking down on fraud will make the false positives rate increase which would make customers leave. Optimizing purely for revenue would just enable fraud that would destroy long term value. This is a three-body problem in finance and no perfect equilibrium exists. Traditional approaches cannot solve this, but there's a path forward. Building AI Agents That Don't Destroy Value (Or Trust) These three mechanisms mentioned below are battle tested approaches that actually work when you are processing millions of transactions with real money at stake. Mechanism 1: Human-in-the-Loop The question should not be whether to use human oversight or not, it should be where and how to use it most effectively. A mature HITL system monitors transactions continuously using ML models trained on millions of historical events. When it spots something suspicious like unusual purchase amounts, geographic anomalies, device fingerprints that don't match or velocity patterns that suggest stolen cards, then it doesn't automatically block the transaction. Instead, for high-value or ambiguous cases at least, it routes the decision to a human fraud analyst. The advantage is that a skilled analyst understands context that AI still struggles with. For example, someone buying plane tickets and then making purchase in a foreign country is not fraud, it means the customer is on vacation probably. The human provides judgement, empathy, and contextual understanding. Another advantage of HITL system is that every decision that a human makes becomes training data for the agent. This creates a virtuous cycle. AI handles clear-cut cases autonomously and gets better over time. Whereas, humans focus on complex edge cases where their expertise adds maximum value. However, HITL costs dearly in latency and money. Skilled analysts are not cheap and if your AI flags too many transactions, then you overwhelm the reviewers and system breaks down. That's why it is extremely important to calibrate this system cautiously. Mechanism 2: Guardrails That Actually Work Think of guardrails as lane markers on a highway. They stop the cars from veering off the road. In payments, these guardrails are hard constraints that AI cannot violate. Performance Thresholds: False positive rate must stay below 2%, p999 transaction processing must remain under 300ms and fraud detection catch rate must be more than 95% for known fraud patterns. When the performance drifts from these thresholds, alerts fire immediately. Performance Thresholds Security Protocols: The AI must verify that it complies with data privacy rules, sanctions lists, anti-money laundering protocols before approving any transaction. These should be treated as embedded constraints that AI literally cannot bypass. Security Protocols Alert Systems: These monitor AI's behavior itself for anomalies. For example: Is AI suddenly approving more high-risk transactions, or has its confidence score distribution changed, or are its decisions faster or slower than normal? Alert Systems These meta-level monitors would catch problems before they cause catastrophic damage. The best payment companies would run real-time dashboards that give operators instant visibility into AI behavior patterns across millions of decisions. They won't wait for quarterly reviews to discover their AI has gone off the rails. Mechanism 3: Constrained Agent Design The most powerful and effective approach would be to build safety directly into AI's architecture. This is about making it structurally impossible for AI to cause certain types of harm. Limited Scope: Instead of one super-intelligent agent that handles everything, build multiple specialized agents with narrow domains. For example, one agent only handles fraud detection for card-not-present transactions under $100, other only handles in-person transactions at gas stations, etc. By limiting scope, potential damage is also limited. If the gas station agent malfunctions, it would only affect gas station transactions. The agent can be shut down without disrupting the entire payment ecosystem. Limited Scope Principle-Based Rules: These are functional constraints that AI cannot violate. For example, "Never approve a transaction that exceeds available balance", or "Never process payments to sanctioned entities". These would act as a safety net such that if AI's learned model fails, these hard rules would ensure baseline safety. Principle-Based Rules Access Controls: Implement principle of least privilege. Each AI agent has exactly the permissions it needs for the specific task it is designed to do and no more. For example, a fraud detection agent can flag transactions, but cannot access customer data beyond what's necessary. It cannot modify account balances or transaction routing. Access Controls Layered Decision-Making: Multiple agents need to agree in order to approve a high-stakes decision. For instance, approving a large wire transfer would require the fraud scoring agent, compliance agent, risk assessment agent and customer behavior agent to agree. Only if all four agree, the transaction goes through. One dissenting agent escalates to human review. This redundancy creates resilience as well. One agent's error is unlikely to cause catastrophic failure because other agents provide checks and balances. Layered Decision-Making The Integration That Actually Matters The successful payment companies that deploy agent AI don't just choose one mechanism. They integrate all three in tandem. They build constrained agent designs to encode safety from ground up, then layer monitoring and guardrails to provide continuous oversight and then implement HITL workflows at critical decision points where human judgement remains irreplaceable. This defense-in-depth strategy means no single point of failure. The companies that succeed treat this as a systems design problem. They architect the entire ecosystem containing agents, oversight, feedback loops, escalation paths, monitoring and governance along with safety and effectiveness built in from day one. Why This Is Inevitable Agentic AI in payments is already here and it is about to scale dramatically. Volume has outgrown human capacity, fraud sophistication requires AI-level responses, customer expectations demand speed, and competitive pressure ensures adoption. The question isn't whether we'll deploy autonomous AI in payments, but it's whether we'll deploy it responsibly. The companies that win aren't the ones with the most sophisticated AI models. They're the ones that understand the sociotechnical system and the interplay between technology, humans, regulations, incentives and trust. They recognize that deploying agentic AI isn't a one-time project but a continuous process of adaptation. Fraud patterns evolve, regulations change, customer expectations shift. The AI systems, monitoring mechanisms, HITL workflows and constrained designs must all evolve continuously. This requires dedicated teams, ongoing investment and a culture that values both innovation and safety. The future of payments will be shaped by autonomous AI agents. The only question is whether you'll deploy it with the oversight it requires, or learn that lesson the expensive way.

The is an opinion piece based on the author’s POV and does not necessarily reflect the views of HackerNoon.

Visa

Agentic AI in Payments: Balancing Autonomy and Risk

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Year of AI in My Life as an Engineer

Advanced AI Techniques for Financial Fraud Detection

AI To Combat AI-Generated Deep Fakes

AI Meets Bitcoin: How Rootstock Powers the Future of Trustless AI

Fraud Detection Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Research by Harish Kumar Sriram Proposes AI-Driven Automation for Secure Transactions

A Year of AI in My Life as an Engineer

Advanced AI Techniques for Financial Fraud Detection

AI To Combat AI-Generated Deep Fakes

AI Meets Bitcoin: How Rootstock Powers the Future of Trustless AI

Fraud Detection Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Research by Harish Kumar Sriram Proposes AI-Driven Automation for Secure Transactions

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps