More retirees are asking AI the money questions they used to ask financial advisers.
The appeal is obvious. AI chatbot answers arrive in seconds, nothing is embarrassing to ask, and it costs nothing. The problem is that a wrong or incomplete answer looks exactly like a right one.
This guide explains why AI gets retirement questions wrong and provides seven steps you can use to check an answer before you act on it.
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
Why AI gets retirement numbers wrong
A chatbot does not look anything up. It was trained on a large body of text gathered up to a cutoff date, and it answers by predicting which words most plausibly come next. When it states a figure, it is reproducing what appeared most often in that text — it’s not reading a current government page.
Retirement rules are badly suited to that, because most of the important numbers change every year.
Contribution limits are the clearest case. For 2026, the amount that can go into a 401(k) rose to $24,500, and the IRA limit to $7,500. A year earlier, they were $23,500 and $7,000. A model trained before that announcement would provide last year’s figures with complete confidence, and nothing in the phrasing would suggest the numbers are stale.
Other figures can be changed by legislation, after the former figure has circulated for years. For example, the age when retirees must start taking required minimum distributions (RMDs) used to be 70½, then it was 72, then 73, and it reaches 75 in 2033. All four ages appear across the internet, usually with no date attached.
Basically, AI handles concepts reliably and specifics unreliably. The seven steps below are built around that split.
Step No. 1: Check the year on every number
Any answer containing a dollar amount, an age, a percentage or an income threshold needs a date attached before it is worth anything.
Ask the chatbot directly which tax year the figure applies to. When asked, a chatbot will often admit its information may be outdated, even though it volunteered the number without hesitation a moment earlier.
Consider any figure with no year attached suspect.
Step No. 2: Ask which agency sets the rule
This is the one question a chatbot answers reliably, because it is a concept question rather than a numbers question.
Information about contribution limits, RMDs and tax treatment should come from the IRS.
Benefit amounts and claiming ages should come from the Social Security Administration.
Information about Medicare premiums and income surcharges (IRMAA) should come from Medicare.gov and the SSA.
Pension rules sit with the Department of Labor.
Knowing which agency oversees the rule turns vague verification into a single page to open.
Step No. 3: Verify at the source
Once you get an answer from a chatbot, go to the agency’s own site rather than simply reading a summary. For example, federal agency pages will state which year a figure applies to.
Skipping this step could be expensive. Missing an RMD triggers a penalty of 25% of the amount that should have been withdrawn, reduced to 10% if corrected quickly.
On a $40,000 distribution, that is $10,000 for a deadline a chatbot might have gotten wrong.
Step No. 4: Feed it your own circumstances
A chatbot answers in generalities unless you provide specifics.
Supply the details that actually influence the outcome: Age, types of accounts, pension income, state of residence and marital status, including whether your spouse has their own earnings record. (Never provide details that are personally identifiable, though.)
Then compare the answer with the answer you get when you provide none of those details.
If the response barely changes, then the advice for your particular situation cannot be trusted.
This matters most when it comes to thresholds. Medicare’s IRMAA works as a cliff rather than a gradual increase — income above $109,000 in 2026 for a single filer and $218,000 for a couple.
A chatbot that suggests you do a Roth conversion without making any reference to IRMAA can lead to you facing four figures in annual premiums two years later (since IRMAA is based on your income two years ago).
Step No. 5: Ask the same question twice
Pose the question again in different words, ideally on a different day, and see whether the original response holds.
Then change one detail, such as adding five years of age or removing pension income, and check that the answer moves in a direction that makes sense.
Answers that swing wildly when you rephrase the question are being generated, not recalled. When two responses conflict, the tie gets broken by checking the relevant agency’s page, not by asking the chatbot a third time.
Rawad Baroud, CFO of ZeroGPT, says that consistency should never be confused with accuracy when evaluating AI-generated information. “Generative AI can produce an answer that is clear, detailed and convincing without having verified the facts behind it.
“Asking the question again can expose inconsistencies, but getting the same answer twice doesn’t prove it is correct. For financial information, the final check still needs to be against an authoritative source.”
So use repetition as a warning system, not as proof of accuracy. Whether the answers are different or the same, you should always verify any important numbers or rules.
Step No. 6: Ask what it left out
Chatbots answer the question asked and rarely flag what sits outside it.
Two prompts do most of the work here:
- Ask what assumptions the answer depends on
- Ask what would make this the wrong move
A recommendation to convert to a Roth, for instance, should surface the tax due this year, the effect on Medicare premiums and the five-year rule before it counts as complete.
According to Gregor Emmian, deputy chief growth and finance officer at Rise, “The most dangerous AI answers are the ones with no caveats attached. If a chatbot tells you to convert to a Roth or claim (Social Security) early without mentioning what could go wrong, that’s not a complete answer — it’s half of one.
“Retirees should treat ‘what am I not being told?’ as a mandatory follow-up question, not an optional one.”
An answer that mentions no downside is incomplete — every retirement decision requires tradeoffs.
Step No. 7: Consult an adviser when an irreversible decision is involved
Some actions cannot be undone once you do them. Claiming Social Security, converting a large sum to a Roth, buying an annuity or taking a pension as a lump sum all belong in that category.
The cost of a wrong turn here is permanent. Claiming Social Security at 62, for someone whose full retirement age is 67, reduces the monthly benefit by about 30% for life, and that reduction extends to the survivor’s benefit.
On a $2,400 benefit, it is roughly $720 a month, or more than $8,600 a year, for as long as either spouse lives.
For anything in this category, print the chatbot’s answer and take it to an adviser or accountant. Ask which parts are wrong and why.
That conversation will be quicker and less expansive than one you start from nothing, and it puts the specifics in front of someone who can be held responsible for them, which no chatbot can.
The bottom line: If you’re using AI this way, the main thing you should keep in mind is that the moment an answer sounds the most authoritative is the moment when you should question its accuracy and explore further, preferably through the relevant agency.
Related Content
Source: www.kiplinger.com
