AI literacy: more than a legal obligation, an opportunity

Artificial Intelligence ("AI") remains the technological revolution of the moment. And what remains. It is a profound change. We know it, we sense it, and we experience it every day in the increased efficiency and productivity in many of the tasks we undertake.

But, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. For legal scholars, the fascination of AI has been accompanied by intrigue about the potential legal problems it may bring. Conflicts that are already emerging at this early stage of AI adoption in society, and which will not be resolved, in large part, until many of the unknowns, interpretations and doubts are resolved by regulators or judges.

The legislator, in turn, has set to work. And, almost pre-emptively, it has rushed to pass a comprehensive regulation on AI or, rather, on the uses of AI in society, even before AI has been massively deployed across society and businesses. It is a pioneering regulation, no doubt, which has opened the debate on whether such urgency can be a deterrent or a disincentive to create and use AI systems.

But, among so many measures and obligations, one stands out that has been applicable since 2 February: the obligation of all AI providers and users (responsible for deployment) to train their employees in the correct use of AI.

It is a mandatory rule, an obligation for companies to take measures to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, their staff and other persons who are responsible for the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf have a sufficient level of AI literacy, taking into account their technical knowledge, experience, education and training, as well as the intended context of use of the AI systems and the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used.

As can be seen from Article 4, this obligation gives companies scope to adapt it to various parameters. In general terms, employees are required to be informed and trained in the use of the AI tools that the company makes available to them, adjusting the training according to the type of AI, the function to be performed, and the previous experience or knowledge of the staff. In other words, each company must create an AI literacy plan that not only meets this legal obligation, but also acts as a catalyst for AI implementation, maximising its benefits and minimising potential risks.

This obligation pushes us to understand the minimum technological foundations of AI, to be able to interpret the results and, of course, to be aware of the ethical and legal implications of adopting AI in professional tasks and activities. Although presented as a legal requirement, it is clear that it can help drive the internal modernisation of organisations by fostering the acquisition of skills that ultimately have an impact on optimising resources, generating value and reducing risks. Increasingly, competition in the marketplace is driven by the ability to harness AI to develop innovative products and services; therefore, having trained teams is becoming a key determinant of competitiveness.

Once again, the obligatory nature of Article 4 of the AI Regulation should not be understood as just another formality , just another legal burden, but as an opportunity to design a solid training strategy, aligned with the company's internal culture and policy on the use of AI and the company's vision. Having competent professionals minimises the learning curve, reduces errors and fosters innovation. In addition, it allows biases to be detected, data privacy to be protected and possible ethical or legal conflicts to be anticipated, reinforcing the corporate reputation and the trust of all the organisation's stakeholders.

AI training has a cross-cutting impact: from recruitment to the analysis of financial predictions. It is therefore essential to adapt training to the responsibilities and knowledge of each position, avoiding content overload and optimising resources. Moreover, AI literacy cannot be static: rapid technological evolution requires constant updating, incorporating innovations with a certain agility while complying with legal requirements.

Furthermore, to complement the content of this obligation, the European Union' s AI Office has published a series of examples of AI training plans of companies that have signed up to the AI Pact. These non-binding examples can inspire and serve as a mirror for the creation and development of organisations' AI training plans.

In conclusion, the legal literacy requirement of the AI Regulation provides the impetus for a robust long-term technology governance framework. Experience shows that AI, when applied judiciously, increases efficiency, quality and productivity, making training a key factor for strategic adoption and competitive differentiation. Preparing in advance will make the difference between viewing this obligation as an obstacle, or turning it into a real opportunity for growth.

Article written by Carlos Rivadulla, manager of ECIJA Madrid, published in El Confidencial.