\n<\/p>\n
Analysts caution that AI<\/a> agents come with one major flaw: they can destroy an RIA’s training processes, unless principals act.<\/p>\n “As each agent replaces new hires in customer service and the associate advisory team, the traditional growth model of training the next generation by having them do the grunt work manually is dissolved,” says Tamara Stelting, an executive consultant at Arch\u2019s Anvil, in an email.<\/p>\n Waxelbaum concurs, noting that his \u201cdeep concern\u201d is \u201cironically the diminishment\u00a0of human engagement in the mundane.<\/p>\n “Once that is completely gone can the advisor still be great at what they do?\u201d he asks.<\/p>\n Former University College London reader in psychology Lisanne Bainbridge, in a 1983 paper, “Ironies of Automation,”<\/a> echoed analysts’ concerns, noting that with less routine work, humans need more training to handle rare, but crucial interventions.<\/p>\n \u201cBainbridge\u2019s warning\u201d is apt, says Pop.<\/p>\n “When the AI workforce encounters something it wasn’t taught to handle, it stops and brings in a person, [who] receives the hard cases with the easy ones stripped away, which means they need to be better prepared than before, not less,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n This \u201ccreates a real training obligation, and it will not solve itself \u2026 that’s where the concern lands for me. Firms need to rethink how junior talent learns.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n