While I agree with you about the level of financial illiteracy in the general population, I don't really see what AI has to add for the vast majority of the population is simple. Basic financial advice is not hard (save regularly, invest in low cost index funds, don't take on CC debt, etc.), but a lot of it goes against most human nature, especially around delayed gratification. People have known for decades that "diet and exercise" are very important for good health, yet we still have an obesity epidemic.

It reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit from decades ago, "Don't Buy Stuff You Cannot Afford": https://youtu.be/R3ZJKN_5M44

> I don't really see what AI has to add for the vast majority of the population

What it does best: sound plausible and never tire of a personal (sounding) conversation

An early study (with one of the early versions of ChatGPT) showed that people also come away less convicted about extreme political notions whereas chatting with a human had no or a slight solidifying effect. It's apparently an amazing tool to convince people of reasonable stuff (and probably also unreasonable stuff, if you'd make it, but I guess those proposals didn't pass the ethics committee!). There's loads of Financial cooks out there that'll convince you of golden mountains for anything that gives them a cut, kickback, or straight-out all of your money, so I could even see the reasoning in encouraging people to chat with just about any chatbot about their financial decisions

My main concern is the reliability: while it may be feel-good to say that it can prevent, say, 95% of scams and 80% of bad ideas, any time it fails at its job will actively steer someone towards ruining their life. Effort might be better spent on something that reliably works. So I'm not convinced either way yet, just that I could see how this is more convincing (and thus effective, at least in aggregate) than a napkin with legit useful commandments (at least for the USA; idk if we have such a thing as 402(K) here)