Artificial intelligence isn’t just for Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Ray Dalio. It’s for you, too, in much cheaper and less sophisticated form, anyway. And it can only go on what you tell, and since we are tremendous liars to ourselves as well as to others, this may be a problem. Certainly, Bill Galvin (obviously) thinks it is a problem.
“I am not sure that many investors, in many cases, can be adequately taken care of by answering questions,” said William F. Galvin, Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth, who likened the services to driverless cars. “You need a human that is responding to them.’’
Kara Stein, too.
“We should be asking whether these new robo-advisers can be neatly placed within our existing laws,” she said in a November speech. “Or, do we need certain tweaks and revisions?”
Also, this law professor in the pay of people who are very much opposed to (investing) robots taking over their world.
“The robo-advisers do seem to skirt the edges of fiduciary law,” she said. “It seemed they were putting a lot of responsibility on the investor, which is fine, but it is a question of how they present themselves.”
The Pros and Cons of Using a Robot as an Investment Adviser [NYT]
