Anonymous wrote:AI is just another tool in your toolbox. We are retired with a very high net worth and we use a couple of advisors, one who works with us on estate planning and who works with our successful adult children. That advisor can see the Big Picture as it relates to our kids and grandkids and I’m not privy to that information but our advisor can guide us in a way that AI can’t. Ultimately investing starting when you are 25 and in a few ETFs and doing it consistently for years increasing it as your income grows is the easiest path to wealth creation.

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I commend you, OP. I think AI should be one part of your planning strategy. Not the only part, of course.

I do this for complex medical issues that I, or my relatives, have had. And then I double-check with my husband, who is an internist, or other doctors who are treating us. ChatGPT has complemented human medical advice very nicely, and my husband was quite impressed.

The only thing I would caution you on is that Chat GPT and other AI models can only give you information they find that's available to them. This means that they will present you with the solutions that are most likely to have been repeated millions of times on the internet. If you want a different strategy than the one most commonly used, for reasons of your own, then AI will not steer you in that direction. It will steer you down the common path. Sometimes that's not what you want.

For example, I am 100% in high tech stocks. Barring Act of God, I am not planning on changing my strategy for retirement, since my aim is to hand down my high-growth, high-risk stock portfolio to my kids. I don't want to redistribute to "safer" investments as I age, not at all. So the common advice wouldn't work for me.

AI cannot do the thinking for you. It's not actually intelligent, it only regurgitates what it has identified as relevant from its database. It can only present you with commonly used options. As long as you remember this, you're all good.

This is a horrible strategy.

Hate to say it, but you should have listened to AI on this one. Sector bets are stupid bets.

PP you replied to. Ha. I've made 20 millions so far with my strategy, poor dear. I don't know why you spew nonsense confidently without knowing anything about investing. I am NOT advising OP or you or anyone else to do what I do... I am just telling OP that AI models cannot think for themselves. They can only spit out what their database contains, which means the more frequently suggested and commonly used financial methods. And for many, that's all they want, so it's fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Disagree. AI is an incredible tool for asset planning. I play around with multiple different assumptions to understand how I'll fare in various scenarios. I do all the other work, too, but AI is so much more efficient than creating my own spreadsheets. Definitely don't need a financial planner, though I still find a tax adviser helpful.

I guess it's ok to assist with particular tasks or to get a good laugh, but nobody who knows anything about investing is relying on AI for much, at least at this point.

It's a tool, and most people under 30, including those in finance, rely on it heavily. If you're not using it, you're inefficient.

That makes sense because the only people who seem to be impressed with chatgpt are people who don't seem to know anything.

There's a lot more AI than ChatGPT out there, and the people who seem impressed by AI are those who are too lazy to learn how to use it well. It's getting better every few months at doing parts of my job and has probably improved my efficiency by at least 25% net of the ways it sometimes slows me down.

I'm sure it depends on the application. It sucks for investing/personal finance type stuff. What is the point if you have to verify the results or use another AI to verify lol. People are getting horrible results that are just unreliable. It's not because they don't know how to use it.

It's 100% accurate with the math. I feed it assumptions, and it does the math. It points out risk factors and other considerations. If I had more than 20 million or less knowledge than I do, I might think a fee-based financial advisor is worthwhile. But I'm not uber-rich, I read a lot, and I have enough discernment to know what is reasonable and what isn't, so AI-supported software is enough. I'm not paying someone to put in the same inputs into AI that I can do myself.

Anonymous wrote:But I just chatgbt'd our retirement withdrawal strategy.

I gave it a ton of information that won't actually identify us. I continued to adjust with more information, probably several dozen times over the last few days. As we went along, I was fact checking using Boggleheads and other resources.

It looks to me like the results -- annual action plans and summaries, ending asset estimation, year-by-year asset balances maximum sustainable spending calculation, brokerage tax control checklist and worksheet, effective tax rate estimates -- is on track. I caught what I thought were errors, but there were always reasons. I've adjusted it for varying returns and I've asked it to check itself for errors. It cited reasons for its calculations and recommendations.

If this thing is close to right, I am cancelling our appointment with a financial planner. I've been so frustrated with them in the past. They tend to talk to my husband rather than me, even though he knows nothing about our finances. They want to speed through parts that I want broken down and explained. And had I asked them to continue to tweak our plan over and over, they would have been exasperated or it would have cost a fortune.

I would certainly feel better if a human double checked all this, but it really just doesn't seem that hard. And I think our planner would say that they need to start over with the same numbers and assumptions -- so they'd end up charging us the same as if I hadn't done this work.

Go ahead. Let me have it. Or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Disagree. AI is an incredible tool for asset planning. I play around with multiple different assumptions to understand how I'll fare in various scenarios. I do all the other work, too, but AI is so much more efficient than creating my own spreadsheets. Definitely don't need a financial planner, though I still find a tax adviser helpful.

I guess it's ok to assist with particular tasks or to get a good laugh, but nobody who knows anything about investing is relying on AI for much, at least at this point.

It's a tool, and most people under 30, including those in finance, rely on it heavily. If you're not using it, you're inefficient.

That makes sense because the only people who seem to be impressed with chatgpt are people who don't seem to know anything.

There's a lot more AI than ChatGPT out there, and the people who seem impressed by AI are those who are too lazy to learn how to use it well. It's getting better every few months at doing parts of my job and has probably improved my efficiency by at least 25% net of the ways it sometimes slows me down.

I'm sure it depends on the application. It sucks for investing/personal finance type stuff. What is the point if you have to verify the results or use another AI to verify lol. People are getting horrible results that are just unreliable. It's not because they don't know how to use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I commend you, OP. I think AI should be one part of your planning strategy. Not the only part, of course.

I do this for complex medical issues that I, or my relatives, have had. And then I double-check with my husband, who is an internist, or other doctors who are treating us. ChatGPT has complemented human medical advice very nicely, and my husband was quite impressed.

The only thing I would caution you on is that Chat GPT and other AI models can only give you information they find that's available to them. This means that they will present you with the solutions that are most likely to have been repeated millions of times on the internet. If you want a different strategy than the one most commonly used, for reasons of your own, then AI will not steer you in that direction. It will steer you down the common path. Sometimes that's not what you want.

For example, I am 100% in high tech stocks. Barring Act of God, I am not planning on changing my strategy for retirement, since my aim is to hand down my high-growth, high-risk stock portfolio to my kids. I don't want to redistribute to "safer" investments as I age, not at all. So the common advice wouldn't work for me.

AI cannot do the thinking for you. It's not actually intelligent, it only regurgitates what it has identified as relevant from its database. It can only present you with commonly used options. As long as you remember this, you're all good.

This is a horrible strategy.

Hate to say it, but you should have listened to AI on this one. Sector bets are stupid bets.

PP you replied to. Ha. I've made 20 millions so far with my strategy, poor dear. I don't know why you spew nonsense confidently without knowing anything about investing. I am NOT advising OP or you or anyone else to do what I do... I am just telling OP that AI models cannot think for themselves. They can only spit out what their database contains, which means the more frequently suggested and commonly used financial methods. And for many, that's all they want, so it's fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I commend you, OP. I think AI should be one part of your planning strategy. Not the only part, of course.

I do this for complex medical issues that I, or my relatives, have had. And then I double-check with my husband, who is an internist, or other doctors who are treating us. ChatGPT has complemented human medical advice very nicely, and my husband was quite impressed.

The only thing I would caution you on is that Chat GPT and other AI models can only give you information they find that's available to them. This means that they will present you with the solutions that are most likely to have been repeated millions of times on the internet. If you want a different strategy than the one most commonly used, for reasons of your own, then AI will not steer you in that direction. It will steer you down the common path. Sometimes that's not what you want.

For example, I am 100% in high tech stocks. Barring Act of God, I am not planning on changing my strategy for retirement, since my aim is to hand down my high-growth, high-risk stock portfolio to my kids. I don't want to redistribute to "safer" investments as I age, not at all. So the common advice wouldn't work for me.

AI cannot do the thinking for you. It's not actually intelligent, it only regurgitates what it has identified as relevant from its database. It can only present you with commonly used options. As long as you remember this, you're all good.

This is a horrible strategy.

Hate to say it, but you should have listened to AI on this one. Sector bets are stupid bets.

Anonymous wrote:you should keep in mind ai is bad at math. Good at language and coding. So it isn’t running the numbers for you, just imitating aggregated advice. If I were you I would give your plan to another llm than the one you used, and ask it to find the biggest holes and concerns in your plan because you are concerned about the financial planner who wrote it. Then I would seek out a one time consult with a great fee only financial planner and go without your husband to finalize it or decide you still need a human planner. Good luck!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Disagree. AI is an incredible tool for asset planning. I play around with multiple different assumptions to understand how I'll fare in various scenarios. I do all the other work, too, but AI is so much more efficient than creating my own spreadsheets. Definitely don't need a financial planner, though I still find a tax adviser helpful.

I guess it's ok to assist with particular tasks or to get a good laugh, but nobody who knows anything about investing is relying on AI for much, at least at this point.

It's a tool, and most people under 30, including those in finance, rely on it heavily. If you're not using it, you're inefficient.

That makes sense because the only people who seem to be impressed with chatgpt are people who don't seem to know anything.

There's a lot more AI than ChatGPT out there, and the people who seem impressed by AI are those who are too lazy to learn how to use it well. It's getting better every few months at doing parts of my job and has probably improved my efficiency by at least 25% net of the ways it sometimes slows me down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Disagree. AI is an incredible tool for asset planning. I play around with multiple different assumptions to understand how I'll fare in various scenarios. I do all the other work, too, but AI is so much more efficient than creating my own spreadsheets. Definitely don't need a financial planner, though I still find a tax adviser helpful.

I guess it's ok to assist with particular tasks or to get a good laugh, but nobody who knows anything about investing is relying on AI for much, at least at this point.

It's a tool, and most people under 30, including those in finance, rely on it heavily. If you're not using it, you're inefficient.

That makes sense because the only people who seem to be impressed with chatgpt are people who don't seem to know anything.

There's a lot more AI than ChatGPT out there, and the people who seem impressed by AI are those who are too lazy to learn how to use it well. It's getting better every few months at doing parts of my job and has probably improved my efficiency by at least 25% net of the ways it sometimes slows me down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is a joke when it comes to financial planning. If you don't know your shit and you don't want to invest time in learning about the different aspects of investing, seek out a fee only financial planner.

Disagree. AI is an incredible tool for asset planning. I play around with multiple different assumptions to understand how I'll fare in various scenarios. I do all the other work, too, but AI is so much more efficient than creating my own spreadsheets. Definitely don't need a financial planner, though I still find a tax adviser helpful.

I guess it's ok to assist with particular tasks or to get a good laugh, but nobody who knows anything about investing is relying on AI for much, at least at this point.

It's a tool, and most people under 30, including those in finance, rely on it heavily. If you're not using it, you're inefficient.

That makes sense because the only people who seem to be impressed with chatgpt are people who don't seem to know anything.