A striking disconnect between trust and action is emerging in the U.S. personal finance sector.
A recent Gallup survey found that only 3% of Americans are "very confident" in using artificial intelligence for managing personal finances. However, among those who sought financial advice in the past year, roughly one in five actually used AI tools. This data reveals a compelling contradiction: consumers express strong skepticism towards AI-driven financial advice, yet their behavior tells a different story.
The study was conducted by Gallup in partnership with brokerage firm Edward Jones, surveying 5,075 U.S. adults aged 21 and older between March 20 and April 6. Notably, Edward Jones employs approximately 19,000 financial advisors, suggesting a potential vested interest in the survey's findings.
For investors, this survey highlights a deep shift in the financial advisory market, where AI tools are quietly infiltrating personal financial decisions at a low cost. Yet, the lack of legal accountability and information limitations still pose significant risk exposure.
Low Trust, High Usage Creates a Contradiction
The data shows a clear "knowing-doing gap." While only 3% of respondents were "very confident" in AI for financial advice, combining those who were "very confident" and "somewhat confident" brings the total to just about 30%.
In contrast, traditional financial advisors enjoy much higher trust, with about 80% of adults having at least "some confidence" in professional advisors. However, among those who actually sought advice, only about one-third consulted a professional advisor.
The most frequently used channel was independent online searches, accounting for 73% of advice seekers. This was followed by family advice (35%), news or social media (26%), and friends, authors, speakers, or influencers (about one-fifth). Channels like employers, retirement plan providers, robo-advisors, and teachers were used less frequently.
Generational Divide: Younger Users Embrace AI, Older Ones Stick to Advisors
The use of AI financial tools shows a clear generational divide. Among those who sought advice, about one-quarter of Gen Z and Millennials used AI, compared to 16% of Gen X and only 7% of Baby Boomers.
The pattern reverses for professional advisors: Baby Boomers consulted them at a rate of 55%, Gen X at 34%, Millennials at 21%, and Gen Z at just 14%.
Cost is a straightforward factor explaining this split. Online searches, family advice, and AI tools are nearly free, while hiring a professional advisor comes with fees. Younger generations, early in their wealth accumulation, naturally gravitate toward low-cost channels.
Expert Warning: AI Cannot Assume Fiduciary Duty
Despite the rising usage of AI tools, experts have issued clear warnings about their limitations.
Taha Choukhmane, an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, told the Associated Press that he advises treating AI as a starting point, not a final authority. "I encourage people to use AI to explain and define concepts," he said, such as clarifying what the stock market is or the difference between a mutual fund and an index fund. He also recommended users ask AI for source references to verify the information they receive.
Bobbi Rebell, a certified financial planner at Financial Wellness Strategies, pointed out a key legal distinction: professional advisors often bear a fiduciary duty, meaning they are legally obligated to act in their clients' best interests.
"No AI is a fiduciary," she told the Associated Press. "It doesn't really know your life, and it won't ask you all the necessary questions."
Regardless of the advice source chosen, the ultimate responsibility for financial decisions—and any resulting losses—remains with the individual.