R0048/2026-04-01/Q001/H2¶
Statement¶
Corporate and government AI training is widespread but covers AI limitations at a shallow level. Programs mention that AI can produce errors and outputs should be verified, but do not provide detailed education on specific behavioral tendencies, failure modes, or the fundamental reasons AI systems produce unreliable outputs.
Status¶
Current: Supported
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | NAVEX course describes "possibilities and limitations" without publicly detailing specific failure modes |
| SRC02-E01 | GSA training covers broad responsible AI themes but no specific failure modes documented in public materials |
| SRC03-E01 | Deloitte focuses on trustworthy AI governance framework; limitations are addressed through governance rather than specific technical education |
| SRC06-E01 | EU AI Act Article 4 requires AI literacy but does not prescribe specific failure-mode content |
| SRC07-E01 | Microsoft responsible AI training covers six principles but publicly visible content is principle-based rather than failure-mode-specific |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | DOL framework explicitly lists hallucinations as a training topic, suggesting some programs go deeper |
| SRC05-E01 | NHS education explicitly addresses cognitive biases including automation bias |
Reasoning¶
The weight of evidence supports H2. Most publicly visible training programs describe AI limitations in general terms (accuracy, reliability, need for verification) without diving into specific failure modes. The consulting firms (Deloitte, PwC, KPMG) publicly describe their training in terms of responsible AI governance frameworks rather than specific technical limitations. The training providers (NAVEX) describe limitations as a module within broader AI literacy. Even the GSA's substantial 21-session training series does not publicly document specific failure-mode coverage. The DOL and NHS frameworks are notable exceptions that name specific issues, but they are framework documents that describe what should be taught — whether actual training delivery matches this aspiration is unknown.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 is the median position between H1 (comprehensive) and H3 (nonexistent). The evidence most strongly supports this hypothesis, with the caveat that internal training materials not visible publicly may be more detailed than what marketing pages and framework documents reveal.