Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 630

AI is more smoke and mirrors than a revolution

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.

 

  •   24 September 2025
  • 13
  •      
  •   
13 Comments
Henry Jennings
September 25, 2025

Great article

OldbutSane
September 25, 2025

Wholeheartedly agree. One of the best articles I've seen in Firstlinks.

Ramon Vasquez
September 28, 2025

Perfect . AI reminds me of the sleight-of-hand performed by stage " magicians " . Beware. !

Regards , Ramon .

Peter
September 25, 2025

A marketing executive asked of a 10 year experienced project manager, during a video conference; what are the 3 most important issues you address with your client during initial meetings?
The answer? Just a moment, I’ll ask ChatGPT.
You’ll what????

RodinOz
September 26, 2025

Excellent thank-you !
No amount of learning equals Consciousness !!!

Rachel
September 26, 2025

Great article, and greatly needed perspective in a world gone mad over AI

Jeremy Dawson
September 26, 2025

You say
Machines ... do not ... take responsibility when errors occur.
Well, I suppose the machines don't but the business deploying them should - and can be made to - do so.
See this article
https://thehill.com/business/4476307-air-canada-must-pay-refund-promised-by-ai-chatbot-tribunal-rules/

CC
September 26, 2025

worst thing ever invented.

Stuart
September 26, 2025

I cannot imagine a machine with empathy and that takes responsibility for its actions, but who knows....great article.

JimG
September 27, 2025

I think the authors are completely wrong about the potential of generative AI like Copilot, ChatGPT, etc. The article lacks strong arguments to explain why gen AI is not as powerful as its proponents suggest. Relying on insults like 'a set of statistical tricks' is no substitute for seeking to understand the capability of these models.

Those who understand the potential and learn how to create value from that potential will be the winners. Get on board or get left behind.

SonjaD
September 28, 2025

You've either fallen for the hype or personally benefit from it. Behind all generative AI is code + computing power + data. The algorithms may be clever, but they're not magic.

Kerry Henry
September 27, 2025

I think AI is over-hyped. I see heat coming off by 2nd half CY26. Yes, there will be some benefits but nowhere near what the leading AI players are suggesting. Luckily, the 6 or so Global High Conviction/Growth funds (biased towards USA exposure) our SMSF is invested in, have capped exposure to the big AI players at 5% of their portfolios, so they obviously aren't that excited either.

Charlie
September 30, 2025

That's why Berkshire amassed a mountain of cash so they could be aggresive when the right time comes to their door.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Simple maths says the AI investment boom ends badly

US earnings season was almost too good to be true

Google is facing 'the innovator's dilemma'

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

The hidden property empire of Australia’s politicians

With rising home prices and falling affordability, political leaders preach reform. But asset disclosures show many are heavily invested in property - raising doubts about whose interests housing policy really protects.

Latest Updates

Shares

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Superannuation

When you can withdraw your super

You can’t freely withdraw your super before 65. You need to meet certain legal conditions tied to your age, whether you’ve retired, or if you're using a transition to retirement option. 

Retirement

A national guide to concession entitlements

Navigating retirement concessions is unnecessarily complex. This outlines a new project to help older Australians find what they’re entitled to - quickly, clearly, and with less stress. 

Property

The psychology of REIT investing

Market shocks and rallies test every investor’s resolve. This explores practical strategies to stay grounded - resisting panic in downturns and FOMO in booms - while focusing on long-term returns. 

Fixed interest

Bonds are copping a bad rap

Bonds have had a tough few years and many investors are turning to other assets to diversify their portfolios. However, bonds can still play a valuable role as a source of income and risk mitigation.

Strategy

Is it time to fire the consultants?

The NSW government is cutting the use of consultants. Universities have also been criticized for relying on consultants as cover for restructuring plans. But are consultants really the problem they're made out to be?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.