Based in San Francisco, California, Turing is the world’s leading research accelerator for frontier AI labs and a trusted partner for global enterprises deploying advanced AI systems.
Remote Business & Finance (AI) Jobs in North America 2026
533 remote jobs open to candidates in North America in Business & Finance (AI). Updated daily.
Role Title: Senior Accountant Expert Role Type: Contractor Location: Remote (US Based) micro1 is engaging Senior Accountant Experts to contribute specialized knowledge and experience to a dynamic customer project.
Meridial Location Remote Engagement Type Independent Contractor About Meridial Meridial places skilled, remote-first professionals into high-trust, high-precision operational opportunities for leading technology companies.
End Date: TBC Location: Remote Type of contract: Freelance Languages required: English Hourly Rate: Include the rate you are comfortable with on your CV. About ProlificProlific is not just another player in the AI space.
Models manage cash on paper and miss what keeps a company solvent: a liquidity forecast that ignores timing, an FX hedge that leaves the real exposure open, a funding plan that assumes the market is always there.
Models talk about markets like a textbook and trade like they've never been filled: a strategy that ignores the bid-ask, a hedge that's wrong by a Greek, position sizing with no respect for slippage or where the liquidity actually is.
Models bind a risk no underwriter would touch: a premium that ignores the loss history, exclusions that don't match the exposure, a claim decision that misreads the policy language.
Models love a founder's story and can't tell a real market from a rounded-up one: a TAM built by multiplying optimism, traction metrics that don't cohort, a moat that's really just a feature.
Models reach for an actuarial answer and fumble the long-tail math: a reserve that ignores development, mortality assumptions applied to the wrong cohort, discounting that quietly breaks the present value.
Models write an equity note that sounds like the sell side and falls apart under a covering analyst's read: an estimate that ignores guidance, a target price with no bridge from the model, a thesis that forgets the last three quarters actually happened.
Hand a model a revenue arrangement and it writes a confident memo, then misapplies the ASC 606 steps, parks a lease in the wrong place under ASC 842, drops a required disclosure, and presents a non-GAAP measure the SEC would flag.
Models give financial advice that sounds reassuring and quietly ignores the client: a tax-blind withdrawal plan, an allocation that forgets the time horizon, an estate suggestion that would fall apart in probate.
Models approve a borrower that any underwriter would flag: cash-flow coverage computed off the wrong line, covenants that don't bite, a rating that ignores where we are in the cycle. Someone has to find the default risk hiding in a clean-looking spread, and that someone is you.
Ask a model to build a forecast and it returns a clean-looking model whose drivers do not connect, whose assumptions defy the business, and whose variance bridge does not tie to actuals. The formatting is immaculate; the logic leaks.
Models build an LBO that returns a tidy IRR and skip the parts that make or break a deal: a debt schedule that ignores the covenants, an entry multiple with no exit story, diligence that takes management's projections at face value.
A model will design an audit approach that reads well and would never survive review: a sample that tests the wrong assertion, a control it calls effective without evidence, a materiality call set where it is convenient.
Models write a pitch deck's worth of confident deal analysis and miss what a deal team lives on: a comps set stuffed with the wrong peers, an accretion/dilution model that ignores the financing, a synergy number pulled from thin air.
Ask a model to plan an audit and it produces a tidy program, then sets materiality by feel, accepts a management assertion as if it were evidence, and designs a sample that would never support the conclusion it draws. Professional skepticism is exactly what it lacks.
Models produce confident accounting answers that fail on the details: misapplied standards, broken reconciliations, and journal entries that don't balance.
Models can recommend a portfolio that reads well and quietly breaks every rule that matters: concentrated bets dressed as diversification, a Sharpe ratio computed on overlapping exposures, position sizing that ignores liquidity and drawdown.
Models handle textbook finance fine and fall apart on the real thing: mispriced risk, subtly wrong derivations, and models that ignore market microstructure.
Ask a model to close the books and it produces entries that foot perfectly and still misstate the result: a lease booked the old way, revenue recognized a quarter early, an intercompany elimination that never happened.
Ask a model a tax question and it answers with authority, then applies a code section that changed last year, misses a phaseout, treats an S corp like a partnership, and forgets that state rules diverge from federal. The number lands confidently wrong.
Models can build a three-statement model that looks clean and still get the mechanics wrong: a balance sheet that doesn't balance, working capital that flows the wrong way, a circular reference silently zeroed out.