Forum Discussion
Is L&D's role expanding in the age of AI?
Here we goooo! AI has been everywhere and it's changing all the time. I feel like my opinions on AI has been on a roller coaster because like anything, there are good parts and bad parts.
- Has AI changed how people learn day to day?
Who doesn't love instant gratification? That's been a big change for learning. I can go to a generative AI model and just ask the question no matter WHAT it is. I need to figure out how to do something in Photoshop? I can just ask AI. What about an Excel formula but I just can't remember what it's called? Ask AI. Before, I'd have to know someone who had those answers or, search the internet.
- Has it changed what your L&D team spends the most time on?
I'd say yes/no. The group I work with does all the pieces ADDIE. We have used generative AI to help with the Design part of the process: outlining, some scripting, a bit of storyboarding but we always have a hand in what it looks like. I can only speak to me but, sometimes I dislike what I get from AI and just go do it myself. But, with that help on the Design portion of the process - it has giving me more time to develop some more effective and fun training on topics that aren't natively fun.
- Where do you see the biggest opportunity, or challenge, for L&D right now?
A big challenge the AI gap that's actually outlined in the article! Now anyone can create training or WBT with the help of AI. That doesn't necessarily means it's good learning. As L&D professionals, we know adult learning Theory, the different processes to create learning, design principals, plain language etc. But someone else who doesn't know those things can ask AI to "create a training on XYZ" get something they see as passable, put it out there not knowing it's not effective. Then we get a influx of bad training others see and think is 'good enough'. It dilutes the good training with sheer volume of 'good enough' training.
Yes, thank you for sharing this KayleneWance! I completely get the AI roller coaster ride.
I love the connection between your first and last points... Anyone can go to AI to get an answer to almost anything, which means they can also use AI to create training. So how do we make sure what they create actually reflects the learning theory, design principles, etc., you mentioned?
That's what makes the idea of the "Capability Architect" so interesting to me. There's this big opportunity to help set those standards and enable others to create effective learning, but figuring out what that looks like in practice is definitely the challenging part.
I also love your point about AI giving you more time to make training more effective and fun. I think we are seeing more and more of that in the community, and it's a great example of how AI can support your expertise.
"It dilutes the good training with sheer volume of 'good enough' trianing"
This is gold KayleneWance!
You hit the nail on the head with your comment "put it out there not knowing it's not effective". The article's model. Enable, Embed, Amplify all happen at or before the point of creation. Nothing in the model checks whether the learning was correct, or is still correct six months later. That's the step I think is missing: a feedback loop. Every analogy the article uses has one. Design systems have deprecation. DevOps has monitoring and rollback. The article borrowed the enablement half of each pattern and left the assurance half out. And its own diagnosis says shelf-life has collapsed. Keep adding content while shelf-life shrinks and you end up with a pile of stale guidance. In my field that's worse than nothing, because people trust it. It was "the training!".
