Human in the loop vs ad bots - the line we draw for fintech

Neeraj Kushwaha

We get asked one question a lot on sales calls right now:
“Will your system just run our ads on its own?”
The honest answer is no. And that is a deliberate choice, especially for fintech.
We have all seen the screenshots:
tools promising “fully autonomous” campaign management
threads about accounts getting banned after a bot started taking rapid fire actions
people exporting data into random LLMs and pushing decisions back into Google or Meta with no guardrails
In low risk categories, some of that might be acceptable. In lending, where you rely on these platforms as core acquisition channels, we think the risk is too high.
What makes fintech different
Two things make us more conservative here.
First, the stakes. A bad decision is not just wasted spend. It can shift your risk mix in ways that hurt collections later. Performance and underwriting are more connected than most dashboards show.
Second, platform rules. Meta and Google are already on alert for suspicious, high frequency automated actions. If a third party tool starts hammering their APIs in a way that looks like a bot making uncontrolled changes, your account can and will come under review.
We did not want Thirdi to be the reason someone lost their main growth channel.
What “human in the loop” means in our world
For us, humans in the loop is not a buzzword. It is a design choice.
The agents in Thirdi:
read your data across Meta, Google, and your CRM
spot waste, fatigue, and odd patterns
prepare clear action suggestions: what to pause, what to scale, what to test
They do not hit the “publish changes” button for you.
Your team still:
reviews suggestions
applies judgement on context, brand risk, and internal constraints
pushes the actual changes in the ad platforms via official, supported paths
This slows things down by a few clicks, but it keeps you on the right side of policy.
Why we believe this is the right tradeoff
Could we wire Thirdi to take full control of your campaigns? Technically, yes.
Would we trust that model for a lender spending crores on Meta and Google, operating in a regulated market, and already nervous about bans? We would not.
By keeping humans in the final loop, we get a few clear benefits:
no surprise policy violations from aggressive bots
clear accountability on why a change was made
more trust from performance, product, and compliance teams who need to live with the outcomes
We still give you the time savings and the sharper decisions. We just stop one step short of saying, “let the machine run your budget while you sleep.”
For some brands, that might sound less sexy. For fintech brands who know what a suspended account feels like, it is usually a relief.
We get asked one question a lot on sales calls right now:
“Will your system just run our ads on its own?”
The honest answer is no. And that is a deliberate choice, especially for fintech.
We have all seen the screenshots:
tools promising “fully autonomous” campaign management
threads about accounts getting banned after a bot started taking rapid fire actions
people exporting data into random LLMs and pushing decisions back into Google or Meta with no guardrails
In low risk categories, some of that might be acceptable. In lending, where you rely on these platforms as core acquisition channels, we think the risk is too high.
What makes fintech different
Two things make us more conservative here.
First, the stakes. A bad decision is not just wasted spend. It can shift your risk mix in ways that hurt collections later. Performance and underwriting are more connected than most dashboards show.
Second, platform rules. Meta and Google are already on alert for suspicious, high frequency automated actions. If a third party tool starts hammering their APIs in a way that looks like a bot making uncontrolled changes, your account can and will come under review.
We did not want Thirdi to be the reason someone lost their main growth channel.
What “human in the loop” means in our world
For us, humans in the loop is not a buzzword. It is a design choice.
The agents in Thirdi:
read your data across Meta, Google, and your CRM
spot waste, fatigue, and odd patterns
prepare clear action suggestions: what to pause, what to scale, what to test
They do not hit the “publish changes” button for you.
Your team still:
reviews suggestions
applies judgement on context, brand risk, and internal constraints
pushes the actual changes in the ad platforms via official, supported paths
This slows things down by a few clicks, but it keeps you on the right side of policy.
Why we believe this is the right tradeoff
Could we wire Thirdi to take full control of your campaigns? Technically, yes.
Would we trust that model for a lender spending crores on Meta and Google, operating in a regulated market, and already nervous about bans? We would not.
By keeping humans in the final loop, we get a few clear benefits:
no surprise policy violations from aggressive bots
clear accountability on why a change was made
more trust from performance, product, and compliance teams who need to live with the outcomes
We still give you the time savings and the sharper decisions. We just stop one step short of saying, “let the machine run your budget while you sleep.”
For some brands, that might sound less sexy. For fintech brands who know what a suspended account feels like, it is usually a relief.
Read more

agents
Winning With AI Agents Has Very Little To Do With The Model You Pick
If you run performance marketing today, you hear the same question every time AI agents come up: “So, which model are you using?” For real-world results, that is the least useful place to focus. Models are already very close in capability. GPT, Claude, Gemini and others keep narrowing the gap every few months. If your edge depends on calling one specific model API, it will not last long. The teams that are quietly getting better ROAS, lower waste, and fewer surprises from AI agents are not winning because they found a secret model. They are winning because of the craft wrapped around the model: the way they write prompts, define agents, and orchestrate how those agents work together. That is where the real leverage lives.

Abhinav Krishna
May 19, 2026

agents
AI Agents Under The Hood: How They Really Work
This post explains that AI agents are not magic robots, but tools built on one simple trick: predicting the next word very well, then wrapping that prediction engine with rules, tools, and memory so it can actually do jobs for you. It shows how this setup lets you talk to software in plain language while keeping humans in control of what the agent can see, decide, and change.

Aravindhan
May 8, 2026

mcp
Treat Meta MCP Like An Analyst, Not A Buyer: Three Low‑Risk Ways To Start
MCP gives you a powerful AI layer inside Meta, but the risk is simple: it can move faster than your brand is ready for.

Anand Kumar
May 7, 2026

agents
Winning With AI Agents Has Very Little To Do With The Model You Pick
If you run performance marketing today, you hear the same question every time AI agents come up: “So, which model are you using?” For real-world results, that is the least useful place to focus. Models are already very close in capability. GPT, Claude, Gemini and others keep narrowing the gap every few months. If your edge depends on calling one specific model API, it will not last long. The teams that are quietly getting better ROAS, lower waste, and fewer surprises from AI agents are not winning because they found a secret model. They are winning because of the craft wrapped around the model: the way they write prompts, define agents, and orchestrate how those agents work together. That is where the real leverage lives.

Abhinav Krishna
May 19, 2026

agents
AI Agents Under The Hood: How They Really Work
This post explains that AI agents are not magic robots, but tools built on one simple trick: predicting the next word very well, then wrapping that prediction engine with rules, tools, and memory so it can actually do jobs for you. It shows how this setup lets you talk to software in plain language while keeping humans in control of what the agent can see, decide, and change.

Aravindhan
May 8, 2026