In Practice
In this section, we examine the application of CC ME on a day-to-day article a working adult might chance upon.
Quick Analysis
Context (C)
Publication Date & Source: The article was published in September 2024 on Banking Dive, a specialized business journal focusing on banking.
Credibility (C)
Banking Dive is a business journal with a niche in banking, and the article falls under its scope, this attests to the credibility of the article.
Merit (M)
Claim: Banks must be more transparent about AI usage and educate customers on benefits and safeguards.
Evidence: Research from J.D. Power underlines the gap in consumer trust and the need for clarity on AI applications in banking.
Engage (E)
Personal Relevance: We frequently rely on banks for financial planning and daily transactions, making the article’s insights on AI integration with bank applications relevant to personal finance decisions.
Standard Analysis
Context
What’s the broader context? When and where did this happen?
We note that this article was published in September 2024, a period of rapid AI adoption in banking, with a finding that one-third of banks’ customer experience investments going toward AI, machine learning and genAI, as quoted by a study by Publicis Sapient.
Credibility
Who’s making these claims? What’s their expertise?
The article's credibility stems from its publication in Banking Dive, a subsidiary of Informa TechTarget, an agency that offers data-driven marketing services to business-to-business technology vendors. As such, articles written by Banking Dive may stand for technological adoption.
Merit
How strong is the evidence? Do they answer the claim given?
The statistics are supported by Publicis Sapient and JD Power.
Publicis Sapient focuses on helping organizations adopt technical solutions. They polled 1,000 senior banking executives on their opinion of AI and GenAI.
JD Power provides research on customer satisfaction. They surveyed 2,000 financial services customers on their opinion of AI in banking products.
As their findings directly contribute to the claim at hand (Sentiment towards usage of AI in financial products), we can say the findings answer the claim given.
Engage
How does this relate to what I already know? What are the implications of such an article?
Working adults regularly interact with banks for various needs, from daily transactions to retirement planning. The article highlights a key consumer demand: "Customers want to be informed when AI is involved in their interactions with banks." This aligns with the broader finding that less than 30% of consumers trust AI chatbots for financial information and advice.
This relates to a recent advisory by the Singapore Govt on mitigating AI risks, with two notions: the notion of informing users of GenAI on how they should utilise such products, and the notion of building trust by making clear safety benchmarks that should be utilised before deploying such AI products.
Thus, this article makes it clear that banks should communicate to customers when AI is used and to highlight pitfalls in a layman friendly manner.
Last updated