Jas Khurana has a clear, ambitious vision for his life. By 35, he wants to be financially independent, free from the need to work for a paycheck. To map his route to this goal, the 25-year-old Melbourne research consultant has enlisted an unlikely guide: artificial intelligence. He’s not alone. Across Australia, a quiet revolution is unfolding in how a new generation manages money. They are turning to chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude not for homework help or creative writing but for serious financial counsel on everything from share portfolios to superannuation.
“It’s acting like an analyst for me,” Khurana told Yahoo Finance. He uses AI to streamline his research, assess investment performance, and inform his super strategy. For him, it’s a powerful starting point—a tool to get information fast. But he’s savvy about its limits. He always cross-checks the numbers, aware of the well-documented risk of AI “hallucinations,” where the technology confidently invents facts. This balanced approach recently led him to rebalance his super portfolio after consulting an AI and doing his own verification.
Khurana’s story is a microcosm of a national trend. New research from AustralianSuper reveals that nearly one in five Australians now use AI tools to inform financial decisions. Among those aged 18 to 29, that figure jumps to 28 percent. The applications are broad and practical:
- 50 percent use it to explore investment options
- 45 percent to compare financial products
- 44 percent to grapple with the complexities of super and retirement planning
- 36 percent to track their expenses
- 29 percent to receive budgeting advice
- 32 percent for tax-related queries
This surge in usage exists in a curious tension with public trust. The same research found that 37 percent of Australians do not trust AI for financial information, with 59 percent citing skepticism about where the information originates. Most users, like Khurana, adopt a cautious stance, with 54 percent saying they cross-check AI outputs against other sources. Yet a concerning 25 percent admit to acting on the AI’s advice without any further verification, a statistic that raises red flags for regulators and financial experts alike.
The concern is not that the technology is useless but that its presentation can be dangerously persuasive. Ross Ackland, AustralianSuper’s Head of Guidance and Advice, acknowledges AI’s value as an educational tool but emphasizes that trust remains the critical factor. “We encourage people to use credible, accountable sources and, before making any significant financial decisions, seek professional financial advice that’s tailored to their individual circumstances,” he warns. This sentiment is echoed strongly by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland has issued clear warnings. “AI only knows what you tell it and may not understand your personal circumstances,” he stated earlier this year. He cautions that while AI outputs are often polished and convincing, the tools do not assess suitability or explain risk in a balanced way. ASIC’s own data shows the trust placed in these platforms is significant, with 64 percent of Gen Z users saying they trust AI for money advice. This veneer of confidence, however, can mask real peril.
Academic research is beginning to quantify these risks. A recent study from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland tested the financial advice from popular large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini. The researchers presented a fictional investor scenario and found the AI consistently recommended portfolios with higher risk than a standard benchmark index fund. The advice showed clear biases:
| Bias Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Stock Preference | A strong preference for US stocks |
| Sector Focus | A tilt towards trendy sectors like technology |
| Investment Strategy | A promotion of “hot stocks” and active stock-picking strategies |
| Fee Structure | Higher fees associated with recommended strategies |
| Risk Level | Consistently higher risk than benchmark indices |
| Long-term Stability | Less focus on long-term investment stability |
“LLMs deliver financial advice with a convincing tone of confidence and care, often wrapped in disclaimers, but this veneer of trust can mask real financial risks,” noted study co-author Phillipp Winder. The conclusion was not to avoid AI entirely but to never “blindly trust” it. The researchers advocate using it strictly as a brainstorming tool for ideas, not as a singular source of truth.
This creates a fascinating paradox for young Australians chasing financial freedom. The very tools offering a fast track to knowledge and empowerment also present a potential detour toward unsuitable risk and costly mistakes. The path forward, as exemplified by cautious adopters like Jas Khurana, lies in a hybrid model. AI becomes the efficient, initial analyst—processing vast amounts of data to highlight options and explain concepts. The human role becomes one of oversight, context, and validation: applying personal circumstance, checking facts against regulated sources, and seeking qualified advice for life-altering decisions.
The dream of being “work optional” by 35 is a powerful motivator. In the quest to get there, artificial intelligence is proving to be a remarkable compass. But as any seasoned traveller knows, a compass is only useful if you can also read the map, understand the terrain, and occasionally ask a local guide for directions. The future of personal finance may be automated, but the wisdom to navigate it safely remains profoundly human.
