Artificial intelligence is being oversold as the next great leap in human capability. The hype suggests a revolution in which machines will outthink and outperform us in almost every field. In reality, much of what is presented as 'intelligence' is smoke and mirrors, and the notion that it can truly replace human beings is misplaced. What we are witnessing is not reasoning or understanding, but large-scale pattern replication, embedded in a digital economy that prizes clicks and volume over substance.
The internet is already saturated with low-quality machine-generated material: shallow articles, fabricated images, cloned voices, scam emails and endless clickbait. The business model is simple: churn out content as cheaply as possible and hope a fraction of it captures attention. Platforms earn revenue from traffic, not truth, which is why every screen is crowded with junk. AI has accelerated this flood. Large language models and image generators can produce reams of text or pictures in seconds, but quantity does not equal insight. What they create is not knowledge; it is noise, and that noise makes it harder for genuine expertise or careful reporting to surface.
The problem is not only aesthetic. It corrodes trust. When fabricated essays, synthetic videos, and bot-written reviews appear indistinguishable from authentic work, users become sceptical of everything. That scepticism undermines journalism, scholarship and public debate. It also leaves fertile ground for fraudsters. Deepfakes can impersonate executives, politicians or relatives to extract money or confidential data. Fake research papers and machine-written grant applications threaten the integrity of science and funding processes. The tools may be clever in a narrow sense, but the surrounding incentives reward speed and reach, not accuracy or accountability.
Finance offers a clear case study in how these technologies can go wrong. Algorithms trained on biased data can entrench discrimination in lending or insurance. Black-box trading systems may amplify systemic risk by driving herding behaviour or feeding on one another’s signals during market stress. Synthetic identities and realistic voice cloning open the door to sophisticated fraud against banks and their customers. Even when intentions are benign, opaque models can obscure the reasoning behind credit decisions or portfolio allocations, leaving clients and regulators unsure why outcomes occurred. Without transparency, robust safeguards and proper supervision, AI threatens fairness, privacy and stability in financial systems.
Workplaces face similar hazards. The drive to cut costs often tempts managers to replace people with automated systems before those systems are ready. Commonwealth Bank of Australia provided a cautionary tale when it attempted to substitute call-centre staff with an AI voice bot. Far from improving efficiency, the initiative produced a surge in call volumes, irritated customers and ultimately forced managers back onto the phones. Human judgment, empathy and accountability cannot be automated away. Machines may handle routine scripts, but they do not soothe an anxious customer, interpret ambiguous requests or take responsibility when errors occur.
The deeper flaw in much of today’s AI discourse is the assumption that machines understand what they produce. They do not. A model can predict the next likely word or pixel based on its training data, but it has no grasp of meaning or consequence. It cannot weigh ethical trade-offs, imagine alternative futures, or accept blame when predictions go wrong. At best, these systems approximate certain outputs of human reasoning; they do not share the underlying comprehension. Treating them as autonomous minds risks delegating moral and strategic decisions to mechanisms that lack awareness altogether.
For organisations, the prudent stance is to view AI as a tool-powerful in defined contexts, but not a substitute for thoughtful people. Used carefully, machine learning can scan large data sets, flag anomalies, or automate repetitive clerical work. Those applications are worthwhile when embedded in transparent processes with human oversight. Trouble arises when marketing outpaces reality, promising 'intelligent' agents capable of strategic thought or emotional sensitivity. That promise tempts firms to downsize prematurely, regulators to relax scrutiny, and consumers to over-trust synthetic outputs.
We suspect the current AI bubble will deflate sooner than its promoters expect. Once the novelty wears off and the cost of cleaning up errors becomes visible, many organisations will temper their enthusiasm. Some will continue to benefit from targeted, well-governed deployments; others will retreat after costly misadventures. The technology is not a magic mind but a set of statistical tricks running on vast amounts of data and computing power. Those tricks can be useful, yet they are bounded, fallible and shaped by whoever controls the data and objectives.
The real threat is not sentient machines overtaking humanity. It is the careless use of these tools to mass-produce rubbish, to erode trust, to displace human judgment, and to concentrate power in opaque platforms. A sober appraisal recognises that intelligence, empathy and responsibility remain uniquely human traits. They are slow to cultivate and easy to undervalue, but they are essential to sound decisions, creative breakthroughs and social cohesion. If we remember that, we can use AI where it adds value without surrendering the roles that only people can fulfil.
Dr Simon Cottrell is the Program Coordinator: Finance and Financial Planning and a Senior Lecturer in Finance; and Chandra Krishnamurti is the Professor of Finance at the University of South Australia | UniSA Business.