Rendered at 06:32:12 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
lukeify 23 minutes ago [-]
Given most financial advisors tend to vend out suboptimal advice and steer customers in favour of products they receive a kickback for, I'm happy to be accepting of an unbiased LLM that's trained on bogleheads.org.
in_absentia 14 minutes ago [-]
If that's what you want, I'll save you some tokens:
#!/bin/sh
while read question; do echo "Put it into VFIAX"; done
ehe78qhe 4 minutes ago [-]
This is missing a lot of steps like:
- Building an emergency fund
- Budgeting and tracking where your money goes
- Planning and saving for large purchases like cars, homes and life goals
- Optimizing use of tax-advantaged accounts like 401Ks, HSAs, and IRAs
Anecdotally, current models seem to be decent at general personal finance principles - certainly better than the majority of personal finance education that people get exposed to unless they seek it out and read a variety of books and sources. But I wouldn't trust them with direct decision making with actual money due to the training lag time on current tax policy, etc.
NitpickLawyer 25 minutes ago [-]
> certainly better than the majority of personal finance education that people get exposed to unless they seek it out and read a variety of books and sources.
Also, models are now good enough that you can give them chapters from "authoritative" books, and they'll integrate that and come up with better answers even if their "vanilla" answers were average. And they'll tailor stuff to your particular situation. It's funny that the "agentic" stuff is only used in coding mostly, while it can and does work in other fields as well.
As always, you kinda need to check it (at least spot check) but all in all I'd agree it's better than the average stuff you used to find with a quick google search.
01100011 54 minutes ago [-]
Single shot or with reasoning enabled? My experience is that reasoning dramatically reduces hallucinations and improves output quality. I don't trust models without it.
wonnage 12 minutes ago [-]
> Overall, the best-performing model was Claude Opus 5 on “reasoning” mode, which still made mistakes in 39 per cent of answers.
in_absentia 33 minutes ago [-]
Now, compare this to a recent story that seemed to claim the opposite:
I don't have the time to review the underlying research and decide which one is more correct. My personal biases make me want to believe the current one. Your personal biases may be pulling you in the other direction. How do we make the conversation more intelligent than that?
yieldcrv 8 minutes ago [-]
Tool calling solves this
sixtyj 1 hours ago [-]
I would prefer to use agent-assisted python scripts that chatbot.
k7peak 1 hours ago [-]
Agreed, this works really well for me. Double check the math/python, execute many times without a LLM that can change o
74gee 26 minutes ago [-]
Well duh! If it's not using tools to look up the state of the market empirically it's not likely to be accurate financially.
demibabs 1 hours ago [-]
I like how FT makes me accept cookies from their 46 “technology” (advertising) partners before showing me that the article is behind a paywall anyway.
jb1991 1 hours ago [-]
You actually like that? I find it kind of annoying.
Wololooo 58 minutes ago [-]
No they do not like it, it is a figure of speech to underline how much they do not like it.
onetokeoverthe 55 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
simianwords 42 minutes ago [-]
These models do pretty well in benchmarks and real world so I'm highly suspicious of this article. Further more, in the original report, the examples of bad answers are from Haiku - at least 7 out of 10. Anyone who knows anything about LLMs know that haiku shouldn't be used for anything pretty much.
There's no reproducible set either. I'm not gonna trust this report.
stymaar 6 minutes ago [-]
Most people[1] interacting with chatbots don't have a paid subscription and they do interact with the free-tier LLMs that are Luna and Haiku, so I still think it's relevant.
[1]: not on HN obviously, but IRL, and probably among FT's readership as well.
SyneRyder 17 minutes ago [-]
Another summary report here, for those who can't get past the paywall:
Much of the testing is on Haiku and Luna, and criticizing the quality of free AI (!). But they do claim Opus 5 with reasoning still failed 39% of their financial questions.
#!/bin/sh
while read question; do echo "Put it into VFIAX"; done
- Building an emergency fund
- Budgeting and tracking where your money goes
- Planning and saving for large purchases like cars, homes and life goals
- Optimizing use of tax-advantaged accounts like 401Ks, HSAs, and IRAs
- What to do with ESPPs, RSUs, and options
- How taxes work and how to optimize around them
- Estate planning
Anecdotally, current models seem to be decent at general personal finance principles - certainly better than the majority of personal finance education that people get exposed to unless they seek it out and read a variety of books and sources. But I wouldn't trust them with direct decision making with actual money due to the training lag time on current tax policy, etc.
Also, models are now good enough that you can give them chapters from "authoritative" books, and they'll integrate that and come up with better answers even if their "vanilla" answers were average. And they'll tailor stuff to your particular situation. It's funny that the "agentic" stuff is only used in coding mostly, while it can and does work in other fields as well.
As always, you kinda need to check it (at least spot check) but all in all I'd agree it's better than the average stuff you used to find with a quick google search.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49139102
I don't have the time to review the underlying research and decide which one is more correct. My personal biases make me want to believe the current one. Your personal biases may be pulling you in the other direction. How do we make the conversation more intelligent than that?
There's no reproducible set either. I'm not gonna trust this report.
[1]: not on HN obviously, but IRL, and probably among FT's readership as well.
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/ai-models-give-wrong-fin...
Much of the testing is on Haiku and Luna, and criticizing the quality of free AI (!). But they do claim Opus 5 with reasoning still failed 39% of their financial questions.