Q001-H3 — Training Covers Limitations Superficially¶
Statement¶
Standard corporate AI training mentions AI limitations but treats them superficially — typically as brief warnings to "verify outputs" without explaining the mechanisms, spectrum, or behavioral dimensions of AI failure, leaving employees with a false sense of preparedness.
Status¶
Supported. The strongest evidence supports this hypothesis. Training programs widely exist and include limitation warnings, but coverage is generic, brief, principle-level, and disconnected from the practical skills needed to detect and manage AI failures.
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | High-level overview; hallucination mentioned as risk category without depth |
| SRC02-E01 | Awareness-level training; depth of limitation coverage unclear |
| SRC05-E01 | Only 5 of 12 agencies acknowledge hallucinations despite 9x growth in AI use |
| SRC06-E01 | 82% train, 59% gap; generic, one-time, disconnected from practice |
| SRC07-E01 | "Verify outputs" advice without explaining verification challenges |
| SRC08-E01 | Legal mandate is flexible — "sufficient" undefined, no specific topics prescribed |
| SRC09-E01 | Single-sentence hallucination warning; no explanation of failure mechanisms |
| SRC10-E01 | >50% of workers find training inadequate |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Deloitte academy is more comprehensive than typical training |
| SRC04-E01 | UK playbook uses stronger language about limitations than most |
Reasoning¶
Every source examined follows a similar pattern: limitations are acknowledged but not explained in depth. The universal advice is "verify AI outputs" but no training material found explains why verification is difficult — specifically, that AI may generate outputs that match user expectations, making them harder to detect as errors. The gap between awareness (training exists) and capability (skills gap persists) is the defining feature.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H3 synthesizes the valid elements of H1 (training exists) and H2 (training is inadequate) into a coherent explanation. The evidence strongly favors this nuanced position over either extreme.