Much of the same commentary was confidently asserted during the 90’s about online shopping, stock trading, and dating.
When it comes to money, or really any kind of action that has consequences, you want the assurance of a deterministic outcome. That is simply not possible with this technology. Maybe it will be but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that so far.
Just like with a real assistant, one could set very clear boundaries as to how much the assistant could spend, on what, etc., or even specify that more money can be spent in, say, a particular period and with a few extra passes (using different models?) just to make sure.
It does really feel like the same animal, because to the degree that I remember the discussions, a lot of it was about a perception of some kind of dichotomy (control or not, being able to 'touch' the product or not, etc.) that really doesn't need to exist.
There are cases where this could be true. I could see, say, asking it to do some research for you or something. Or maybe grab some restaurant recommendations. Really anything that brings you options that you can then make a decision on. If I do end up using this tech, thats how I would feel comfortable using it.
When it comes to things like making purchases and such on your behalf, thats where I disagree. Even with boundaries it's just not deterministic enough for most peoples risk appetite IMO. And when I say "most people" I am not talking about HN folks.
And just to be clear, I do use this technology. I just am very aware that its not this magic bullet that the AI bros want us to believe it is. I used it this morning in fact to help me write up some code I felt too lazy to deal with. It very quickly and efficiently wrote what I asked. I was pleasantly surprised and _almost_ missed the very bad bug that it dropped right into the middle of it all. I'm not giving my credit card to that lol.
The fact that such an AI, with sufficient development, even given what we have now, could present everything on a silver platter up to the execution of the /exact/ commands, and this alone is incredibly useful and can save a lot of time/expense/effort.
The crucial bit is that with, say, a human personal assistant, even if they say they will do exactly what you tell them to do, it's still ultimately inexact. But with an AI, it's trivial to 'decorate' a structured 'command object' (as json, xml, whatever) and from that moment let the deterministic system take over.
If anything, we sometimes want an actual human to /not/ deterministically execute /exactly/ what we tell them to, because perhaps they might know we were angry, drunk, or they just heard something on the news that should invalidate our request.
Either way, my point is that this distinction between 'doing research' and 'doing a thing' is not so dichotomous. In practice, I suspect all but the most autonomously-minded people, and especially non-IT folk, given enough sense of control over the confirmation of potentially 'fuzzy' actions, are happy with an AI doing a ton of stuff for them.
OpenAI will subsidize banks to offer that safety-net for users of Operator. If Chase says you're 100% not on the hook for purchase mistakes made by OpenAI's Operator -- are you going to take the risk (as you pointed out, it's financial, it matters to people) with Perplexity Pro or Siri?
Just because they work that doesn't make them a good experience. Show me one dating app with good reviews.