Opening — Why this matters now As large language models quietly migrate from text generators to decision makers, the industry has developed an unhealthy obsession with the wrong question: Did the model choose the same option as a human? Accuracy, F1, and distributional overlap have become the default proxies for alignment. They are also deeply misleading. ...
How do we judge whether an AI is thinking like a human—or at least like a financial analyst? A new benchmark, ConDiFi, offers a compelling answer: test not just whether an LLM gets the right answer, but whether it can explore possible ones. That’s because true financial intelligence lies not only in converging on precise conclusions but in diverging into speculative futures. Most benchmarks test convergent thinking: answer selection, chain-of-thought, or multi-hop reasoning. But strategic fields like finance also demand divergent thinking—creative, open-ended scenario modeling that considers fat-tail risks and policy surprises. ConDiFi (short for Convergent-Divergent for Finance) is the first serious attempt to capture both dimensions in one domain-specific benchmark. ...
As AI systems step into the boardroom and brokerage app, a new question arises: How do they think about money? In a world increasingly shaped by large language models (LLMs) not just answering questions but making decisions, we need to ask not just whether AI is accurate—but what kind of financial reasoner it is. A recent study by Orhan Erdem and Ragavi Pobbathi Ashok tackles this question head-on by comparing the decision-making profiles of seven LLMs—including GPT-4, DeepSeek R1, and Gemini 2.0—with those of humans across 53 countries. The result? LLMs consistently exhibit a style of reasoning distinct from human respondents—and most similar to Tanzanian participants. Not American, not German. Tanzanian. That finding, while seemingly odd, opens a portal into deeper truths about how these models internalize financial logic. ...