Drawing on an unlikely golfing analogy, Andrew Goodwin – CEO of Truly Independent, explores how advisers and AI can work together to deliver better outcomes for clients.
The spread of genuinely game-changing innovation almost always sparks a dizzying mix of enthusiasm and fear. A novel technology can be all the rage one week and the root of all evil the next.
We saw this again recently with artificial intelligence. Just when the revolution seemed to be back in full swing, we were suddenly told AI might kill us all[1].
This was disappointing news to the President of the United States. Donald Trump branded renewed anti-AI sentiment “a sick conspiracy” and declared himself the only “guardrail” necessary for safe progress[2].
Many advisers will have watched these latest twists and turns with interest. After all, our industry serves as a classic example of how AI can inspire excitement and dread in equal measure.
On the one hand, we all know there are many ways in which AI can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of how we work – which should translate into benefits for our clients and other stakeholders.
On the other hand, there remains a nagging suspicion that AI could one day put us all out of business – a somewhat less appealing outcome.
Realistically, it’s already impossible to imagine a world in which AI plays anything less than a major role. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. One way or another, this story will have to play out.
Whatever the walk of life, the key task now is surely to find a sensible balance between being empowered and being overpowered. So how might the adviser community achieve this happy medium?
Combining for maximum value
Trump delivered his unwavering defence of rampant AI development shortly after returning from a trip to Ireland. He had visited Doonbeg, County Clare, to watch the conclusion of the Irish Open golf tournament.
A love of golf is one thing I unequivocally share with the Commander-in-Chief. Like him, I’ve won a few minor titles in my time – in my case without being accused of cheating at every available opportunity.
Where we really differ is that I own the sort of golf clubs with which you hit the ball, whereas he owns the sort that host championships. Doonbeg is among his portfolio of world-class courses.
Anyway, it was while watching the Irish Open’s closing stages on TV that I was suddenly struck by the idea that the relationship between an adviser and AI – at least ideally – should be like the relationship between a professional golfer and a caddie.
Shane Lowry took the title at a canter. He arrived on the 18th tee with an incredible 10-shot lead over his nearest challengers and still managed to sign off with one last birdie.
He and his bagman, Dermot Byrne, went about their task with remarkable diligence and dedication, refusing to let up even when they held an unassailable advantage.
Yet there was something else that resonated with me: their success reflected their respective strengths, with each fully recognising the other’s supremacy.
Lowry can probably learn the nuances of every square yard of a course, but he can’t do it as well as Byrne. Byrne can probably save par from a greenside bunker, but he can’t do it as well as Lowry.
In the sphere of financial advice, similarly, advisers and AI can make for an extremely powerful combination. But this is likely to happen only if we understand where each excels and is equipped to add maximum value.
Tempering optimism with caution
Despite our mutual adoration of what Mark Twain reputedly dismissed as “a good walk spoiled”, I don’t side with Trump in the AI debate. I’m optimistic about the role that tech has to play in our industry, but I also believe we need to proceed with caution.
In my view, it’s not a question of AI suddenly rendering us all redundant. I honestly don’t see that happening, because the human touch remains highly valued – not to mention fundamental – in the arena of financial advice.
Thankfully, it’s also not a question of AI somehow contriving to knock us all off. I haven’t seen a cyborg army marching towards the office just yet, and I’m reasonably confident that I never will.
In my opinion, this is instead a question of ensuring we use AI that’s genuinely capable of enhancing our services and products.
The fact is that AI comes in multiple guises, and many of them are woefully inappropriate for our requirements.
I’m more than willing to hold up my hands and confess I’ve there and done that – albeit only briefly. My colleagues and I have sat through several demonstrations of AI packages that were touted as perfect for our business yet quickly proved to be nothing of the kind.
This is why we need to choose carefully. It’s well worth taking the time to distinguish between the good stuff and the dross, because only the former is likely to have a positive impact on what we do.
Ultimately, then, is this a game-changing innovation that’s better approached with enthusiasm or with fear? All things considered, I suspect the answer is that we should approach it with a healthy blend of both.
[1] See, for example, Guardian: “‘We must slow the pace’: CEO of Anthropic calls for AI slowdown”, September 12 2026 – https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/12/we-must-slow-the-pace-ceo-of-anthropic-calls-for-an-ai-slowdown.
[2] See, for example, BBC News: “Trump says AI safety fears a ‘hoax’ as he rejects calls for greater safeguards”, September 15 2026 – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw980n0nd0qjo.
Main image: golf, robert-ruggiero-U5HMj5J6Opg-unsplash
