Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
You shouldn’t. AI is already powerful enough to take over any financial advisory or accounting role with minimal oversight and the only reason it isn’t at scale is because it takes time and, at the moment, still requires people with the right knowledge to train and maintain these systems for optimal results. Once that training is complete it’ll be able to develop retirement, investment, and tax strategies based on simple inputs of what people want without them having any knowledge of how to get there. There are already options that can achieve this.
If you’re not retiring within the next 5 years, you’ll either be using AI to do most of the work for your clients or you’ll be in a different career.
It’s already the case for lawyers, developers, marketers, and many other industries. If you’re not using AI to improve your outputs, you’re falling behind your peers. And yeah, while we can all keep up the ruse that people need people to do these things and there will be a good stretch where folks still believe that, you shouldn’t bank on it lasting.
|
Nah. I’ve paid for and tried out AI for a chunk of my job, and it was not useful. It’s amusing, because people think it’s perfect and have it all sorted. In reality though, it’s not there yet. The investment recommendations looked great on the backtest, but when the systems were live they were brutal. That’s not to suggest that it’ll never happen (I’m not that naive), it’s just that it’s not there yet.
And investing in particular is a little different. I can see the obvious application in terms of quants and formulaic investing. But investing isn’t a science. You can’t just boil down everything to formulas and screens to get an edge (and certainly not a lasting one). And that leads to another issue for AI; if all the AI is looking for the same edge, it gets arbitraged away even faster and there’s no edge.