1 in 5 U.S. advice seekers use AI, but 70% distrust it for money

For AI builders and fintech innovators, the 20% usage rate in financial guidance is a strong signal of latent demand, but the 70% distrust rate is a flashing warning light. The Gallup-Edward Jones data underscores that users are willing to experiment with AI for money tasks, yet product trustworthiness—not just capability—will determine whether these tools cross the chasm to mainstream adoption.

A new Gallup survey, conducted in partnership with financial services firm Edward Jones, has quantified a growing but conflicted relationship between American adults and artificial intelligence in personal finance. The poll, fielded in the spring of 2026 and released on August 7, reveals that while one in five U.S. adults who sought financial advice in the past year turned to AI tools, overall confidence in these technologies remains strikingly low. Only about 30% of all U.S. adults report having “a great deal” or “some” confidence in AI’s ability to manage money, with a mere 3% expressing “a great deal” of trust. This trust deficit persists even as usage climbs, highlighting a fundamental gap between adoption and credibility.

“

For AI builders and fintech innovators, the 20% usage rate in financial guidance is a strong signal of latent demand, but the 70% distrust rate is a flashing warning light.

The survey, which sampled adults aged 21 and older, also exposed a broader irony in how Americans seek financial guidance. Approximately 80% of respondents said they have at least “some” confidence in professional financial advisers, but only one-third of those who sought advice actually consulted one. Instead, 73% relied on their own internet research—a category that presumably includes everything from search engines to social media. Another 35% turned to family members, and 26% gathered information from other informal sources. This pattern suggests that while the perceived expertise of human advisers is high, accessibility, cost, or convenience may be driving people toward self-directed digital solutions, including AI.

The poll’s findings land at a time when generative AI and fintech applications are rapidly reshaping financial services. Tools like ChatGPT, dedicated robo-advisors, and AI-powered budgeting apps are becoming commonplace, yet regulators and consumer advocates have raised concerns about accuracy, bias, and the lack of fiduciary responsibility in algorithmic advice. The fact that 20% of advice seekers have already experimented with AI suggests early adopters are willing to test these tools, but the 3% deep-trust figure indicates that for most, AI remains a supplementary rather than a primary source.

Financial experts caution against full reliance on AI. Taha Choukhmane, an associate professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, recommends using AI primarily as a learning accelerator—to explain concepts like the difference between mutual funds and index funds—rather than as a decision-making authority. “I would encourage people to use AI to explain and define. ... Using AI to explain these concepts can be very useful because it can empower people to get the most out of these methods,” Choukhmane told the Associated Press. This framing positions AI as an on-ramp to financial literacy, not a replacement for professional judgment.

For the financial services industry, the implications are significant. The trust gap suggests a large opportunity for firms that can combine AI’s efficiency with human oversight. Hybrid advisory models, where AI handles routine queries and portfolio monitoring while human advisers provide personalized strategy, could address the credibility issue. Conversely, pure-play AI advisors may struggle to gain market share unless they overcome the perception of being risky or impersonal. The Gallup data also underscores the enduring value of the human adviser brand: 80% confidence is a powerful asset that can be leveraged through technology-enhanced services.