The AI advice gap: what happens when the machine says "yes"?

Ask a UK bank for investment advice, and you get a lawful recommendation.

If it was negligent, you will have the right to make a claim using the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Ask ChatGPT, or, more fashionable, Claude, the same question and you get nothing.

Just an answer, but it will be delivered with a more confident tone, no matter whether it's right or absolutely wrong.

Despite that, more than a quarter of UK consumers now say they trust AI chatbots for money advice.

The Financial Conduct Authority found this figure and flagged it as a live concern in its most recent review.

Other surveys found even higher figures.

STRAT7 found 55% of UK adults have used AI for financial guidance, Sky News reported 40%, and EY's global study measured Gen Z adoption at 68%.

Whatever the precise number is, the direction is the same.

People have started to trust AI more and more in their financial decisions.

But the debate about it has, so far, been asking the wrong question.

What is the wrong question? Most publications today focus on accuracy, and what everyone wants to know is whether the AI's advice is good.

But is it? In one study, there were five real financial scenarios passed to major chatbots, and the output was compared to certified financial planners.

The result was unsurprising, though.