- Study finds professionals feel disrespected when clients compare their expertise with AI-generated answers
- Advisors become less motivated after losing clients to AI-powered recommendations online
- Clients using AI fact checks may appear less trustworthy to professionals afterward
A new study from Monash Business School has claimed professional advisors feel offended when clients use AI to get a second opinion on their recommendations.
The research, published in Computers in Human Behaviour, found professionals become less motivated to work with clients who consult AI tools.
This effect persists even when the client only uses AI for background information, or as a complementary resource rather than a replacement.
Human experts feel insulted by AI fact-checking
“Advisors view AI as substantially inferior to themselves; thus, being placed in the same category as an AI system feels insulting and signals disrespect, undermining advisors’ willingness to engage,” Associate Professor Gerri Spassova, the lead author, said.
Imagine spending an hour helping a client plan a complex trip, carefully mapping out flights, hotels, and itineraries — only for that client to take your recommendations and book everything through an AI chatbot instead.
Researchers found professionals who lost business to an AI were far less willing to work with that client again in the future.
Clients who consult AI may be seen as less competent and less warm by the advisors they approach for help.
When clients defer to AI, it prompts advisors to question the value of their own human contribution, and this may get worse as AI gets better.
Many advisors take offense at this, and it is the major reason why they pull back from clients who consult AI.
“One can only speculate,” Associate Professor Spassova said. “My intuition is that the situation will not get much better. Firstly, because professional advisors’ jobs are on the line.
“Also, as AI gets better, it may threaten our sense of worth and self-regard, and so when clients defer to AI, it would prompt advisors to question the value of their human contribution.”
The study suggests for new client advisor relationships, people should not disclose that they consulted AI before the meeting.
A long history of working together might weaken the negative reaction, but even then, the advisor may still feel cheated.
This applies to doctors, lawyers, and other professionals whose expertise clients might fact-check with AI tools.
A doctor who spent years training does not want to be second-guessed by a patient who spent five minutes on ChatGPT.
AI tools usually give a general overview of a situation and are very likely to make mistakes.
Its judgment is highly dependent on the amount of information you supply, and if you are not detailed enough, its response can be misleading.
Also, AI gives responses to questions based on the way it is asked, and users can easily influence an AI tool to tell them what they want to hear.
Considering these nuances, it would be unfair to judge a professional with years of study and experience based on an uncertain tool.
There is absolutely no need to throw it in the face of a professional that you have consulted AI because it creates a sense of “lack of trust”.
Until professional norms adjust to the presence of AI, clients would be wise to keep their fact checking private or risk damaging professional relationships.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.