Be Careful What You Prompt For: Great Training Takes More Than AI

I am in the middle of our annual budgeting process, and for the first time in my career, I have deliberately left something out.

Historically, I have always included a contingency in our learning and development budget. A financial buffer to accommodate training requirements that might emerge during the year, particularly in areas where we lacked the internal expertise to develop the content, structure the programme or produce the trainer's notes.

This year, I haven't. Not because I believe we have suddenly acquired every conceivable capability within our organisation, but because artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed the economics of developing learning content.

Today, I can prompt an AI platform to develop a comprehensive training programme on almost any subject. Within minutes, it can produce learning objectives, structured modules, facilitator guides, exercises, case studies, assessments and detailed trainer's notes. What previously required external consultants, specialist instructional designers and considerable expense can now be accomplished at a fraction of the cost and time.

From a budgeting perspective, that is an extraordinary efficiency.

But it also raises a question that I believe we are overlooking in our enthusiasm for AI-driven productivity: just because we can generate the content, does that mean we can deliver the learning?

And this is where I believe the distinction between artificial intelligence and human intelligence becomes critically important.

Great training has never been simply about the transfer of information. If it were, we could have replaced trainers with textbooks decades ago.

The difference between an adequate trainer and an exceptional one is rarely the quality of the PowerPoint presentation. It is what happens between the slides.

It is the emotional intelligence to recognise when an audience is disengaging. The ability to read the room, interpret body language and identify the subtle signals that suggest confusion, resistance, curiosity or enthusiasm.

It is knowing instinctively when to slow down because a concept needs further explanation, or when to accelerate because the audience has already grasped the point.

It is recognising that the person sitting quietly at the back may have the most valuable contribution to make, but needs encouragement and psychological safety before offering it.

All of these are deeply human capabilities.

Then there is storytelling.

The most memorable trainers I have encountered rarely relied exclusively on theoretical frameworks. They brought concepts to life through personal experiences, anecdotes, humour and occasionally their own failures.

They understood how to layer knowledge, connecting an abstract principle to a recognisable workplace situation, then reinforcing it through discussion and reflection.

That is how information becomes understanding, and understanding becomes behaviour.

Equally important is rapport. Exceptional trainers establish credibility not simply through what they know, but through how they connect with people. They build trust, challenge assumptions without humiliating participants and create environments where individuals feel comfortable questioning established thinking.

Can AI simulate elements of this? Certainly. Can it convincingly replicate the authenticity, lived experience and emotional connection of a genuinely outstanding trainer? I remain unconvinced.

Consider a robot capable of running the 100 metres faster than any human being. Technologically remarkable, perhaps. But would watching it win an Olympic gold medal inspire us in the same way?

Of course not.

We admire human achievement because we understand the effort, vulnerability, determination and experience behind it. Remove the humanity and something fundamental disappears.

I believe the same principle applies to learning.

The real danger is that organisations become so captivated by the efficiency of generating knowledge that they underestimate the importance of how that knowledge is experienced.

We risk confusing the availability of information with the development of capability.

AI will undoubtedly transform learning and development. It will democratise access to expertise, accelerate content creation, reduce costs and allow organisations to personalise learning at a scale previously unimaginable.

I welcome all of that. Indeed, my budget for 2027 already reflects it.

But the future of workplace learning should not be a contest between artificial intelligence and human trainers. It should be a thoughtful combination of both.

For me, AI can provide the knowledge, structure and facts, while exceptional human trainers provide the interpretation, inspiration and connection.

In my experience, the most powerful learning experiences are defined not by how pretty your deck is, but by what people experience in your training room, and those subtle human connections, in my view, are something no machine will ever credibly replicate.

MENAFN03112026000049011007ID1111907363