Chat GPT is usually wrong on financial matters

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:
Duke of Marmalade said:
Sounds a bit "nanny".
Click to expand...

The problem is illustrated by the earlier posts in this thread.

Fibernacci got completely wrong answers from Chat GPT.
When two expert practitioners in the area told him that Chat GPT was wrong, he seemed to dismiss them and to rely on Chat GPT rather than on strangers. This is a terrible waste of time. He may as well have insisted that Liam and Ger were wrong because, to quote Ciru, a guy in the pub told him the opposite.

@Duke of Marmalade
You posted a link to a Chat GPT output today without any explanation of the content. It was a difficult technical issue, and people should not be relying on Chat GPT for an answer.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Fibernacci got completely wrong answers from Chat GPT
Click to expand...
I've had a other look at that one. The main answer to the question asked was correct (but the details accompanying it were completely wrong), but the answer should have pointed out that the question, as asked, would give rise to an answer that would lead the asker to draw the wrong conclusion.

Is growth inside a PRSA tax free when the contributions do not receive tax relief?

Chat GPT answered "yes".

The human answer would have been, "Yes, but the whole fund is taxable on the way out of the PRSA, apart from any tax free lump sum."
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You posted a link to a Chat GPT output today without any explanation of the content. It was a difficult technical issue, and people should not be relying on Chat GPT for an answer.
Click to expand...
If I had posted the content without attribution to the bot it would look as if this was my opinion. That would be incorrect as I would need corroboration before I was prepared to stand by the content.
ChatGPT is not a poster herself but I thought that my posting what she thought and attributing it to her did contribute to the thread.
But of course I am fine with whatever course is decided in regard to its use on AAM.
 
One of the characteristics of a good advisor is that they will always be prepared to say "Sorry, I don't know enough to answer that question".

One of the characteristics of a bad advisor is that they will rarely if ever be prepared to say that.

AI programs can be great but as least as of yet, they're firmly in the latter camp.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Should it be completely banned from askaboutmoney?
Click to expand...

So if I want to ask ChatGPT for some advice, I know how to do that - I would not be impressed if I asked a question here, and someone came back with either "well ChatGPT says..." or worse (much worse!) an unattributed answer from ChatGPT. I think people pose questions on the forum in the hope of receiving advice from people who (hopefully) know what they're talking about, or draw on their own experience if not expertise.

The other part of this - asking ChatGPT a question and getting poor guidance, and then coming here to double check the guidance strikes me as a bit gauche, but it's unlikely we can stop this even with a policy change.

Rather than banning it, I'd advocate discouraging it, with perhaps an indication of escalating responses if someone persists in posting garbage because they're convinced the AI knows better.
 
kickstart said:
So if I want to ask ChatGPT for some advice, I know how to do that - I would not be impressed if I asked a question here, and someone came back with either "well ChatGPT says..." or worse (much worse!) an unattributed answer from ChatGPT. I think people pose questions on the forum in the hope of receiving advice from people who (hopefully) know what they're talking about, or draw on their own experience if not expertise.
Click to expand...
Very good point. I suppose I was assuming that us ChatGPT folk are still a minority - a bit patronising, my bad. I won't be posting ChatGPT any more.
 
Fibernacci got completely wrong answers from Chat GPT.
When two expert practitioners in the area told him that Chat GPT was wrong, he seemed to dismiss them and to rely on Chat GPT rather than on strangers. This is a terrible waste of time. He may as well have insisted that Liam and Ger were wrong because, to quote Ciru, a guy in the pub told him the opposite.

This is completely incorrect. I didn't dismiss anyone and didn't rely on ChatGPT. I found it interesting that AI's reading of the law concluded something against the grain. Laws have loopholes all the time and there is another thread about the government closing a pension loophole for directors in companies etc. I know full well that the pros on AAM know how the system works which is why I asked.

There's nothing wrong with investigating an avenue that's thrown up, it's another thing betting your house keys on something unverified. That's why I also clearly stated you have to verify anything you're given.

You're kind of putting words in my mouth a bit there, probably because written word leaves you to draw your own perceptions.

FWIW, and ban me if you must, but I think you're being quite dramatic and overreacting a tad.
 
Fibbernacci said:
This is completely incorrect. I didn't dismiss anyone and didn't rely on ChatGPT.
Click to expand...
This is how you responded to @LDFerguson's correction of the erroneous AI generated info that you posted:
Fibbernacci said:
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
Click to expand...
And @LDFerguson isn't exactly an anonymous stranger but an industry professional with a long history of helpful and accurate posting on pension and other matters here on Askaboutmoney.
 
Are you telling me that as a layman I should blindly follow advice on AAM without verifying it for myself because some established posters have a lot of respect for some other established posters and know them much better than I do? Really? My assertions are sound - > Don't rely on AI and Don't rely on posters in internet forums, I'll continue to live by that.

I think you and some other folks seem intent on manufacturing a mountain out of a molehill. AAM is great, LDFerguson is great but that will never change the fact that this is an internet forum at its core.

My points have been misinterpreted because you took whatever meaning suited you best at the time, ergo you overreacted. If you need some clarification on what I mean or whether I'm 'dismissing' people you can ask me and pay attention to my response, don't make presumptions.
 
Fibbernacci said:
My assertions are sound - > Don't rely on AI and Don't rely on posters in internet forums, I'll continue to live by that.
Click to expand...
In that case, don't rely on Revenue either because they can and do give out incorrect information and won't allow that as an excuse for taxpayers acting incorrectly on it.
Fibbernacci said:
so I'm making an enquiry to Revenue
Click to expand...
 
So many seem to see asking chatgpt as being the same as googling something when they are not the same at all
AI is so unreliable if you don't know the true answer to something - see here
www.irishexaminer.com

Terry Prone: Badger-licking test proves AI is not as smart as it’s cracked up to be

'AI has no oil on its feathers, no capacity to laugh at you or itself'
www.irishexaminer.com www.irishexaminer.com

Basic critical thinking and lateral reading seems to have disappeared, yet have never been more important
 
For me it suffices to come onto an internet forum to gather ideas and inform your own personal strategy. If I was making a major strategic decision, I would do a level of due diligence before committing to something.

For example, I learned here that ARFs are taxed in Ireland when you are resident in Spain. This is a critical point for my plans so I checked the DTA. There you go, trust but verify.

If something were significant enough, with enough wealth behind it. Take professional advice because someone that you can possibly sue won't be too casual about the advice they give you.

You really need to stop with the whole 'Fibbernacci checks advice by consulting AI' line. I didn't suggest that and you shouldn't insinuate it.
 
'
Fibbernacci said:
on posters in internet forums, I'll continue to live by that.
Click to expand...
In that case, don't rely on Revenue either because they can and do give out incorrect information and won't allow that as an excuse for taxpayers acting incorrectly on it.

I think you're right about this. They didn't respond to me and I thought. 'why would they'.
 
Fibbernacci said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go back and read what you actually said.

You had a chinwag.
You wondered was it right.
You were told it wasn't by two experts who deal with the issue every working day
But you said you would check with Revenue anyway.

I think you should also get Senior Counsel's opinion on it as well in case everyone other than Chat GPT has been getting it wrong for years.
 
Back
Top