# AI can help build wealth. But it can also be disastrously wrong. > Source: > Published: 2026-08-05 11:03:12+00:00 # AI can help build wealth. But it can also be disastrously wrong. ### What AI gets right and wrong about personal finance AI is arguably the largest financial adviser in America. A 2026 survey found that **55%** of Americans now use AI to help manage their money — up from just 10% a year earlier, and more than the 41% of Americans who say they use a **human** financial adviser. AI has become America’s **go-to **financial resource because, in addition to being quick and free, it *feels* confidential and its answers *sound* credible. The only **problem**? It’s neither. AI *can* offer solid generic information, but its personalized advice is often **biased** and or just flat-out wrong. Consequences are inevitable when you combine an unreliable source with an **unknowledgeable** user base. Only **half** of Americans are **financially literate**, meaning they have the skills to responsibly earn, save, and invest money — so, the people relying the most on AI are probably the **least equipped** to detect its inaccuracies. If that scares you, read on. ## Helpful, but mostly for generic advice When it comes to personal finance, AI can help you learn the **basics**. *The* *New York Times *[profiled](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/business/chatgpt-financial-advice.html?utm_campaign=are-geopolitical-crises-actually-good-for-markets&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=www.profgmarkets.com#:~:text=appeal%20makes%20sense.-,A.I.,get%20it%20done%20without%20spending.%E2%80%9D) people who used AI to **create budgets **and to find strategies for paying down debt. The advice they received was largely helpful and responsible — essentially an amalgam of information you would find on Investopedia, bank and credit union websites, and in personal finance [books](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593714024?lv=shuf&utm_campaign=are-geopolitical-crises-actually-good-for-markets&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=www.profgmarkets.com&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback). A caveat: Don’t tell AI everything. Nine percent of Americans who have used AI for personal finance have shared their **Social Security number**, and 10% have shared bank account numbers. That’s not a good idea. [Here’s](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-data-privacy-chatgpt-11717128?utm_campaign=are-geopolitical-crises-actually-good-for-markets&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=www.profgmarkets.com) what you should keep to yourself, and here’s why [oversharing](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-data-privacy-chatgpt-11717128) with AI is **dangerous**. AI can be a helpful resource for the basics, but it can become **unreliable** and **biased** when asked for **personalized** financial advice. MIT Sloan [researchers](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/half-americans-now-ask-ai-financial-advice-how-good-it) had 1,000 people write prompts asking AI how to save and invest, then fed those prompts into ChatGPT and Gemini and used the **advice** to make financial decisions for made-up people across a full lifetime. They found that the advice was *mostly* correct. It encouraged households to **save more**, invest in a diversified portfolio, and plan for retirement. However, they also found that the *way* you ask AI for financial advice shapes what you get back — and probably not in ways you would expect. People with **low financial literacy **who asked vaguer questions ended up, in simulation, with nearly **$50,000 less wealth** by age 60 than financially literate people asking the same AI about the same topic. Financial advisers are supposed to shrink those disparities. Prompts written by **women** also generated **$60,000 less wealth** in simulation than prompts written by men. Some of the variance came from the questions themselves: Women included more words like **“family”** and **“grocery,”** while men asked about **“strategy”** and** “growth.”** But some of the bias came from the AI itself: When researchers fed it identical prompts and only changed the stated gender, it gave women less equity exposure than men. Another study asked seven chatbots for advice for the **same household,** changing only whether it was headed by a **white** or **Black** male or a white **female**. Several recommended a **bigger emergency fund** for households headed by Black men and white women — which has some logic, since women are likelier to shoulder emergency costs and Black families are likelier to face negative income shocks due to systemic inequalities and challenges. But one model went much further: DeepSeek cut the recommended** stock allocation** for the Black family in half. ## AI is always confident and often wrong Dispensing incorrect information is bad. Dispensing it **confidently** is **worse**. AI’s tone is authoritative, so it never triggers the BS test you’d run on a stranger who is mansplaining 401(k)s. That bravado leads people to take AI’s output at **face value**: 1 in 5 Americans who’ve followed AI’s personal finance instructions **acted right away** — without follow-up questions, additional research, or human input. Unfortunately, AI is **often wrong.** When [asked](https://www.ftadviser.com/content/dbe34701-ddcc-4f39-a903-73bb8bb0587a) 100 questions about personal finance topics, AI answered correctly 56% of the time, was deceptive or misleading 27% of the time, and was outright wrong 17% of the time. However, only** 9%** of Americans report getting incorrect information from an AI chatbot. This implies that more than a third are receiving wrong or misleading advice **without realizing** it. It’s also worth noting that, unlike a traditional adviser, AI doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to act in your best interest.