Chat GPT is usually wrong on financial matters

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
58,253
I have moved the following posts from a thread on PRSAs. The thread was going along nicely until Fibbernacci decided to ask Chat GPT and got completely incorrect answers. He seems to disregard the corrections from professionals in the business - Ger Sheehy and Liam Ferguson.

Update: It is now proposed to change the Posting Guidelines as follows:

AI generated answers to tax and other financial questions are usually incorrect. Please do not post them here.
This includes questions/answers such as:
  • Answering questions asked by others with an AI generated response
  • Starting a question such as "Chat GPT told me that there were no estate taxes in Ireland. Is this correct?"
  • Correcting another poster on the grounds that "Chat GPT told me that there are no estate taxes in Ireland."

Should it be banned as above?
Should it be completely banned from askaboutmoney?
Or just banned from financial and tax questions?

Is there any role for AI on askaboutmoney? Does it answer questions like "How can I get rid of weeds on my gravel driveway?" better than the contributors to askaboutmoney?
 
Last edited:
Hi Folks. During my morning chinwag with ChatGPT it appears that I can open a PRSA to get tax free growth even after having maxed out contributions to occupational pension scheme. Is this true? It would effectively be an ISA only it s pension related.


Can You Open an Extra PRSA and Still Get Tax-Free Growth?

Yes, absolutely.

Even if you’ve already maxed out your tax relief limits (e.g., 25% of earnings under age 40), you can still make additional contributions to a PRSA (or even a second one), and the growth within it remains tax-free.


---

The Two Key Things to Know:

1. Tax Relief Limit

Revenue allows tax relief on contributions up to a certain % of your earnings, based on your age.

This limit includes both your contributions and your employer’s (BBH’s 8%).

Anything above that limit doesn’t get tax relief on the way in, but...


2. Tax-Free Investment Growth Still Applies

All funds inside a PRSA—whether made with tax-relieved money or not—grow free of income tax, DIRT, or CGT.

This is a huge advantage versus investing through a regular brokerage account where you’d be taxed on gains or income annually
 
There should be a separate forum on here for the inaccurrate/misleading information that folk want to feast on, and discuss, from ChatGPT.

Plus, it's not like this notion hasn't been flogged to death here already. Why not just search AAM for the accurate stuff.
 
Fibbernacci said:
Even if you’ve already maxed out your tax relief limits (e.g., 25% of earnings under age 40),
Click to expand...

That's wrong.

Fibbernacci said:
This limit includes both your contributions and your employer’s (BBH’s 8%).
Click to expand...

That's wrong.

And - fundamental issue - some of your fund is probably going to be taxed when you withdraw it. So you don't get tax relief on contributions but pay tax on withdrawals.

I agree with @GSheehy - you're better off searching through Askaboutmoney for correct information; not ChatGPT.
 
According to ChatGPT there should be no tax on the way out for the portion where tax was already paid.

Anyway everyone's saying it doesn't happen but I sent an enquiry to Revenue just in case. Will circle back on their response.
 
Fortune said:
I'd be in favour of the phrase ChatGPT being added to the content filter so it can't be posted here
Click to expand...
That won't stop AI generated content being posted if it's done without attribution or something other than ChatGPT is used with attribution.
 
"Can you clarify what exactly you're referring to here? Bear in mind that you've already posted at least two pieces of information from ChatGPT that were egregiously incorrect."

I'm aware it's most likely egregiously incorrect but I like to follow these things up to their conclusion nonetheless. AI is great for Maker-side work but needs to be Checked for this very reason. It's claimed there is nothing in the law that indicates growth in a PRSA cannot be tax free when created off the back of non tax-relieved contribution so I'm making an enquiry to Revenue to confirm that rather than:

1/ Taking an AI chatbot's word as gospel

2/ Taking anonymous strangers' word as gospel on an internet forum

And just to be clear I didn't state anything as a fact, I just canvassed opinion about the unexpected output from ChatGPT.
 
Fibbernacci said:
And just to be clear I didn't state anything as a fact, I just canvassed opinion about the unexpected output from ChatGPT.
Click to expand...
I threw a load of questions at ChatGPT a few months ago on various subjects around managing personal finances in Ireland. All but one of the answers was wrong, and there wasn't exactly anything complicated in there.
 
Corola said:
It's better at helping you work with information than helping you access it.
Click to expand...
It's better at looking at your question and deciding which words are statistically most likely to follow from that. For certain fields this would be extremely suitable (I'm sure it works great for meal plans or fashion), but for something that realises on tax law of a specific country, it's not so hot.
 
I asked ChatGPT what it thought about this site

Askaboutmoney is basically where hope goes to get audited.
It's like walking into a grey, windowless room full of middle-aged lads in high-viz jackets who will analyze your €12 Spotify subscription like you're bankrupting a nation.

The vibe is Irish Catholic guilt, but applied to money:

Bought a coffee? You're financially illiterate.

Thinking of buying a car? You're a fool who deserves high insurance premiums.

Haven’t maxed out your pension, your spouse's pension, and your dog's pension? Absolute disgrace.

As for the design? It looks like someone said, "what if we made Boards.ie, but even sadder?" It’s so outdated it should qualify for archaeological protection under Irish heritage laws.

Threads often start with a simple question like:
"Can I afford a holiday this year?"
And end with fifteen posters telling you you’re a reckless, self-sabotaging muppet unless you invest every spare cent into a government bond earning 1.4% APR.

Posting anything remotely optimistic about your finances is seen as bragging, and god help you if you mention cryptocurrencies — you'll be sentenced to 5 years of community service reading about diversified ETFs.

And yet — despite it all — if you squint past the bitterness, the boomer energy, and the 2005-era UI, you might just get the best financial advice you'll ever receive.
If it doesn’t break your spirit first.
Click to expand...
 

Chat GPT is usually wrong on financial matters​

Click to expand...
As I've said elsewhere before, this is not at all my experience based on recent extensive use of it to tease out some financial and related issues. It has made mistakes at times and it's always necessary to double/sanity check what it gives back, but I've generally found it to be very useful and informative.
 
"Anyway everyone's saying it doesn't happen but I sent an enquiry to Revenue just in case. Will circle back on their response."

Never mind ChatGPT, the Revenue website contains many misleading misinterpretations of tax law, all of which suit the Revenue's own position on a range of issues.

Revenue's own helplines can also mislead and Revenue routinely disclaim all responsibility for "advice" dispensed by their own officials.

AI is going to be a very valuable tool to any powerful institution who wishes to mislead the public.
 
T McGibney said:
Revenue's own helplines can also mislead
Click to expand...
I once had to explain to their mortgage interest relief phone line how mortgage interest relief worked. In fairness to them, they did eventually come back to me to tell me I was right and to correct the relief.


T McGibney said:
AI is going to be a very valuable tool to any powerful institution who wishes to mislead the public
Click to expand...
If they had their own AI, trained on the relevant Acts, SIs and guidance notes there'd at least be chance of it being at least a little useful
 
Sounds a bit "nanny". I presume one can post what one gets from ChatGPT but the concern is that by referencing ChatGPT one is implying that it is gospel. I think folk are getting to know her limitations.
For me ChatGPT is becoming my consult of choice, usurping Google and Wikipedia.
It is very good the way one can chat with it and develop your understanding. But yes it does get things wrong.
I surpass my "free" daily limits on some days, though I can't see me actually paying for it - Wiki has set that standard :)
 
As I mentioned earlier, I have found the likes of ChatGPT useful when analysing and teasing out some financial (and other) issues. But I've seen it make egregious mistakes in some cases and I always double/sanity check what it gives back. I wouldn't blindly accept what it generates but I also certainly wouldn't agree that it is "usually" wrong. But I don't think that it's a good idea to allow Askaboutmoney posters to post only links to AI generated content/chats with no other context or discussion. But this may already be covered by the existing posting guidelines:
Brendan Burgess said:
17 Do not post links without commentary
Posts containing only links may be deleted. Provide a summary of the content of the link. This will allow readers know whether to follow the link or to remain within Askaboutmoney.
Click to expand...
I think that that posting guideline predates the XenForo feature that "unfurls" most URLs so that even if just the link is posted a brief summary/snippet is displayed automatically. But not always:

Why are some links not clickable?

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ireland-edges-into-top-10-global-tax-haven-ranking-2024-10-01 Ireland edges into top 10 global tax haven ranking DUBLIN, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Ireland has leapfrogged the Bahamas to become the world's ninth most significant tax haven, according to a ranking...
www.askaboutmoney.com
And never, as far as I know, for AI chat links so readers have absolutely no idea or forewarning of what the content is. So, in my opinion, it behoves the poster to provide some context if they post such a link.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top