Skip to content

Q001-H1 — Training Covers Limitations Adequately

Statement

Standard corporate AI training courses adequately teach employees about AI limitations including reliability, accuracy, and behavioral tendencies, with specific actionable warnings.

Status

Partially supported. Training programs exist widely and most include some coverage of AI limitations. However, the depth of coverage is shallow: limitations are typically mentioned as brief warnings (e.g., "AI can hallucinate") rather than explained as fundamental properties requiring specific skills to manage.

Supporting Evidence

Evidence Summary
SRC01-E01 NAVEX course identifies hallucinations as primary generative AI risk
SRC02-E01 GSA training includes technical track with risk examples
SRC03-E01 Deloitte offers 30+ courses with Trustworthy AI framework
SRC04-E01 UK playbook warns AI is "not guaranteed to be accurate"
SRC07-E01 Microsoft training defines hallucinations and recommends verification
SRC08-E01 EU AI Act mandates AI literacy including risks

Contradicting Evidence

Evidence Summary
SRC05-E01 Only 5 of 12 federal agencies acknowledge hallucinations; half struggle with current policies
SRC06-E01 59% report skills gap despite 82% providing training; training is generic and one-time
SRC10-E01 More than half of workers find AI training inadequate

Reasoning

The evidence shows training exists but does not support "adequately" covering limitations. Training materials mention limitations at a headline level but do not engage with behavioral tendencies, failure mode mechanics, or practical detection skills. The gap between training availability and training effectiveness is well-documented.

Relationship to Other Hypotheses

H1 and H2 represent opposite poles. The evidence points toward H3 as the best-supported position: training exists widely but covers limitations superficially. H1 is partially supported only in the narrow sense that limitations are mentioned; it fails on the adequacy criterion.