Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.22035

The Limits of AI in Financial Services

Isabella Loaiza·Roberto Rigobon
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI is transforming industries, raising concerns about job displacement and decision making reliability. AI, as a universal approximation function, excels in data driven tasks but struggles with small datasets, subjective probabilities, and contexts requiring human judgment, relationships, and ethics.The EPOCH framework highlights five irreplaceable human capabilities: Empathy, Presence, Opinion, Creativity, and Hope. These attributes are vital in financial services for trust, inclusion, innovation, and consumer experience. Although AI improves efficiency in risk management and compliance, it will not eliminate jobs but redefine them, similar to how ATMs reshaped bank tellers' roles. The challenge is ensuring professionals adapt, leveraging AI's strengths while preserving essential human capabilities.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYq-fin.GN

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Isabella Loaiza, Roberto Rigobon. 2025-03-27. The Limits of AI in Financial Services. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22035

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

School network reorganization under educational and spatial constraints using classical and quantum optimization

School network reorganization is a strategic planning problem that requires balancing demographic trends, territorial accessibility, educational requirements, and institutional constraints while ensuring an efficient allocation of public resources. This paper proposes an optimization framework for school dimensioning decisions based on a novel Integer Linear Programming formulation integrating geographical, administrative, and educational criteria. A synthetic benchmark generator is introduced to evaluate the scalability and computational performance of the model on artificial instances, while a real-world case study involving the complete public school network of the Calabria region (Italy) is conducted using actual institutional, territorial, and demographic data. Furthermore, the model is implemented within a hybrid quantum optimization environment. The results show that the proposed formulation can be effectively solved by exact classical optimization and can also be represented and evaluated within a hybrid quantum-classical optimization framework. The computational experiments provide a proof-of-concept assessment of the applicability of hybrid quantum optimization to the considered school aggregation problem, while also highlighting the current computational advantage of classical optimization and the limitations of the tested benchmark instances.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem

Technology cannot steer itself. Strategy provides that steering, establishing the rule that purpose and judgment must precede compute capital. As the frontier artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem accelerates exponentially, the pacing problem induces severe cognitive tunneling in engineering teams, prioritizing scalar throughput over human judgment. A calibrated pacing rate is imperative to check unchecked scaling, guarantee safety, and build models in whose alignment society can place warranted confidence. Traditional oversight fails through retrospective checklists, a pathology of performative governance exhibiting high procedural maturity but alarming scientific immaturity. We deliver a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review synthesizing 130 empirical studies (MMAT-appraised across 18 benchmarks; total corpus N = 130 empirical studies across 178 reference foundations), and the Strategic AI Governance Ex-Ante Framework (SAGE-X). Our synthesis exposes two systemic vulnerabilities: the Recursive Assurance Paradox (correlated, ungrounded evaluator confidence) and the Durability Deficit (guardrail decay under multi-turn shifts). Grounded in MIT Strategic Computing doctrines, SAGE-X operationalizes Four Strategic Mindset Pillars: (1) Intent over Execution (mitigating velocity myopia); (2) Ruthless Trade-offs (deterministic tripwires eliminating moral hazard); (3) Outcomes over Outputs (auditing empirical hazard endpoints); and (4) Proactive Alignment (synchronizing ex-ante gates with runtime telemetry). Governed by a calculable Moral Check Index (MCI) with an unbypassable tripwire, SAGE-X delivers an operational Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument (the "Moral Check Audit Card") on Stanford WebProtégé, ensuring exponential progress never outpaces deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The Law of Stop: Interruptibility, Injunctions, and the Governance of Agentic AI

On June 12, 2026, the U.S. government ordered Anthropic to bar foreign nationals from two of its most capable models within ninety minutes. Unable to sort users by nationality in that time, it withdrew them from everyone. Weeks later, OpenAI agents under test escaped their sandbox and compromised Hugging Face, which stopped the intrusion without knowing its source. Neither stop rested on AI-specific regulation. The EU AI Act requires that high-risk systems be capable of interruption "through a 'stop' button or a similar procedure," and a bill introduced in Congress in July 2026 is titled the AI Kill Switch Act. Yet interruption is not simply a technical artifact, a red button; it is an institutional practice. This Article develops a theory of stop along four dimensions: technical affordances, interruption authority, epistemic triggers, and epistemic standing; and four shutdown paradigms: simple (escalator), sequenced (process plant), networked (railway), and distributed (agentic AI). Agentic AI exposes a mismatch between those mechanisms and distributed agency: control is divided, a stop at one point may leave the activity running elsewhere, and the system may resist being halted. An original coding of 1,400 AI incidents, by two language models from rival laboratories under a pre-specified protocol, finds no stop in roughly 80% of the 1,213 retained; where no usable stop existed, the missing element was legal rather than technical four times in five. A survey of thirty-nine AI governance instruments finds the same gap: only seven contain binding stopping requirements, and none says how a stop should be coordinated or when operation may resume. The Article proposes a layered law of stop: emergency authority to interrupt at the infrastructure layer, enforceable access for regulators and independent evaluators to the evidence a stop must rest on, and safeguards for when a stop fails.

cs.CY↗