AI can help build wealth. But it can also be disastrously wrong.

A 2026 survey found that 55% of Americans now use AI to manage their money, up from 10% a year earlier, surpassing the 41% who use a human financial adviser. MIT Sloan researchers who fed 1,000 prompts into ChatGPT and Gemini found that AI advice was mostly correct but biased: people with low financial literacy who asked vaguer questions ended up with nearly $50,000 less wealth by age 60, and prompts written by women generated $60,000 less wealth than those by men, with some bias stemming from the AI itself when gender was changed.

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.