We Are Currently Hiring!
We Are Currently Hiring!
Welcome to the latest edition of the Healy Wealth Management newsletter, your monthly guide to navigating the financial complexities of life.
Let us know your thoughts. And if there’s something that could benefit a friend or family member, please send it their way.
2026 brings meaningful changes to 401(k) plans that could directly affect how much you save and how your retirement income is taxed.
In this short video, Erick Murray explains the new contribution limits, updated catch-up rules, and an important Roth requirement impacting higher-income earners.
He also discusses how to think strategically about pre-tax versus Roth contributions as tax laws evolve.
Even small adjustments today can materially improve long-term outcomes.
Watch this brief overview to understand what’s changing and how to make sure your retirement strategy stays aligned with your broader financial plan.
In 1990, a person is 15 years old.
In 1995 that same person is 10 years old.
How can this be?
Every few months a new headline appears warning that artificial intelligence is about to replace millions of workers. AI can write essays, generate images, summarize research papers, and even produce computer code. If you watch the demonstrations, it can feel as though machines are quickly learning to do everything people do. It raises a natural question: are we witnessing the beginning of mass job replacement, or are we misunderstanding what these systems actually do?
One way to think about AI is that it performs best when the problem is narrow and structured. Consider driverless cars. The environment is governed by clear rules: lanes, traffic lights, speed limits, and predictable driving behaviors. Autonomous systems can analyze data thousands of times per second and react faster than humans in many situations. When the task involves processing large amounts of data and following defined rules, AI can perform extremely well.
But many jobs are not structured like driving. They require judgment, context, and responsibility. AI can summarize legal documents or explain the basics of a regulation, but that is very different from giving a legal opinion. A legal opinion requires interpreting facts, weighing risks, understanding precedent, and accepting liability for the conclusion. The same distinction appears in medicine, engineering, finance, and many other professions – even advertising (see article on Coke). These fields involve decisions where the cost of being wrong matters.
One reason is an inherent limitation in how large language models work. These systems do not actually “know” facts in the way a human expert does. Instead, they predict the most likely sequence of words based on patterns in the data upon which they were trained. Most of the time this produces useful answers. But when the model encounters uncertainty or incomplete information, it may simply generate something that sounds plausible. Researchers call this a hallucination.
A hallucination occurs when the AI confidently produces information that is partially or completely wrong. There have already been well known examples of lawyers submitting court filings written with the help of AI that cited legal cases that never existed. The AI produced realistic looking case names and citations, but they were entirely fabricated. The system was not lying. It was doing exactly what it was designed to do: generating language that sounds statistically likely.
Experts tend to recognize these mistakes quickly. A doctor reading a medical explanation may notice incorrect terminology. An engineer may spot unrealistic assumptions in a calculation. A lawyer will quickly recognize a fake citation. But non-specialists can be fooled because the writing sounds fluent and confident. The result is that people unfamiliar with a subject may overestimate how reliable the answer really is.
This dynamic also appears in creative work. AI can generate images, layouts, and design concepts quickly, but professional creators still need precise control over typography, color, composition, and brand consistency. Tools such as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop provide that control. Increasingly, these platforms incorporate AI capabilities, including models developed by companies such as OpenAI and Google. But the role of AI inside these tools is to assist the professional, not replace them.
The broader lesson is that AI is extremely powerful, but it is not a substitute for expertise. It can accelerate research, produce drafts, and automate repetitive tasks. What it cannot do reliably is judge whether the answer it produced is correct.
For that reason, the people most likely to benefit from AI are not those who rely on it blindly. They are the professionals who know enough about their field to recognize when the AI is right and when it is wrong.
“It was a sad and disappointing day when I found out that my universal remote control did not, in fact, control the universe.
Not even remotely.”
– Dave Barry
In late 2024, Coca-Cola released a series of AI-generated Christmas commercials as part of its holiday campaign. The ads were designed as a modern remake of its iconic 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” campaign. The goal was to replicate the look and feel of its classic ads with lower production costs and faster turnaround. It became a case study on the limits (and perils) of trying to leverage your advertising content creation process through the use of AI.
To see one of the original 1995 holiday commercials, click here.
To see one of the 2024 AI-generated commercials, click here.
When pressed, many viewers said the 2024 ads lacked the warmth and nostalgia of the originals. They were frequently described as “soulless”, “creepy”, and “emotionally flat”. This is critically important because Coca-Cola’s holiday ads are not just advertisements. They are emotional signals tied to tradition.
Once people realized the ads were AI-generated, criticism intensified. Viewers felt Coca-Cola was cutting corners. Others saw it as replacing human artists. The move conflicted with a brand built on authenticity and shared experience.
But did Coke get the message? No. They doubled down and tried it again in 2025. After all, the capabilities of AI have advanced dramatically since 2024. To see how much AI-generated video has improved, click here.
The improvement is dramatic. What once looked distorted now appears almost real.
This contrast matters. AI is advancing rapidly at execution.
But once again, Coke’s 2025 holiday campaign was a flop, exposing one of the biggest problems with AI-generated video. Advertising, design, and content creation are professions built on judgment, context, and responsibility. Every effective output reflects thousands of small decisions about tone, timing, and emotional resonance. When those decisions are slightly off, the result feels flat even if it looks correct.
Most interestingly, Coke’s AI-generated ads were well-received by focus groups prior to release. Perhaps because focus groups are an inherently structured evaluation, the AI videos passed muster. Apparently focus groups can’t catch the reaction of unstructured humans to AI in the real world.
Wall Street is missing this dynamic and mispricing businesses like Adobe. The concern is that AI will commoditize creativity. History suggests the opposite. When production becomes easier, output improves and demand expands. Better content creates more competition for attention, which increases the value of refinement, editing, and taste.
AI will likely expand the creative economy.
And in that world, platforms that help professionals turn raw output into effective communication may become more valuable, not less.
“The trouble with most of us is that we’d rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.”
Norman Vincent Peale
“What is important is not the quantity of your knowledge, but it’s quality. You can know many things without knowing the most important.”
Leo Tolstoy
Answer:
The years are BC.