Discussion: View Thread

As Generative AI and algorithmic assurance tools begin to produce audit conclusions with minimal human intervention, is the accounting profession approaching a point where audit opinions could be generated by machines rather than auditors?

Should such AI-generated audit opinions ever be recognized as valid and reliable by regulators and standard setters!? and if so, does this challenge the very notion of professional judgment and skepticism?

Moreover, in the event of material misstatement or audit failure, who ultimately owns and is accountable for the opinion: the audit firm that relied on the technology, or the AI platform that generated the analytical and narrative output?

Very interesting. Seeing the development of AI in finance and accounting I am very concerned about the ethical implications. Who signs off on the assurance engagement? I'm saying the auditor or rather the audit firm. Do they put a note somewhere indicating the involvement of AI? I think they should put a disclaimer on it to inform the user, and not just bury it in the notes somewhere.

Totally agree - AI can significantly enhance audit quality. The key question for me is where we draw the line between decision support and opinion ownership.

I think whenever we feel professional judgement discomfort is where we draw the line

I would call for engaging an additional layer of humanized quality assurance to deal with outliers, red flags and flagrant output, or even to consider hybrid (Human-Ai) review and validation for cases with critical scope