<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wiki-spirit.win/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Adam.price4</id>
	<title>Wiki Spirit - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki-spirit.win/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Adam.price4"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki-spirit.win/index.php/Special:Contributions/Adam.price4"/>
	<updated>2026-07-08T16:23:03Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.42.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki-spirit.win/index.php?title=AI_Wrote_Training_Examples_That_Don%E2%80%99t_Match_Our_Company:_What_Do_I_Do%3F&amp;diff=2329549</id>
		<title>AI Wrote Training Examples That Don’t Match Our Company: What Do I Do?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki-spirit.win/index.php?title=AI_Wrote_Training_Examples_That_Don%E2%80%99t_Match_Our_Company:_What_Do_I_Do%3F&amp;diff=2329549"/>
		<updated>2026-06-27T00:49:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Adam.price4: Created page with &amp;quot;&amp;lt;html&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; I’ve been in the Learning &amp;amp; Development trenches for a decade. I’ve seen every &amp;quot;next big thing&amp;quot; in corporate training come and go, but generative AI hits differently. It’s faster, it’s slick, and it’s arguably the most efficient way to generate &amp;quot;corporate-sounding&amp;quot; fluff I’ve ever seen. But here is the problem: Efficiency without accuracy is just a faster way to ship misinformation.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Last week, I was reviewing a module on internal data handli...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;html&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; I’ve been in the Learning &amp;amp; Development trenches for a decade. I’ve seen every &amp;quot;next big thing&amp;quot; in corporate training come and go, but generative AI hits differently. It’s faster, it’s slick, and it’s arguably the most efficient way to generate &amp;quot;corporate-sounding&amp;quot; fluff I’ve ever seen. But here is the problem: Efficiency without accuracy is just a faster way to ship misinformation.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Last week, I was reviewing a module on internal data handling. The AI had generated a scenario about &amp;quot;accessing the shared drive.&amp;quot; It was grammatically perfect. It flowed well. But it described a process that didn’t exist at our company, cited a software version we decommissioned in 2022, and implied that our InfoSec team handles requests that actually route through IT Operations. If a new hire had followed that advice, they would have been locked out of their system within ten minutes. That’s when I added that entry to my &amp;quot;hallucination log&amp;quot;—a running, slightly cynical record of every time AI has confidently lied to us.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; If you are staring at AI-generated training material and wondering why it feels &amp;quot;off,&amp;quot; you are right. AI is a prediction engine, not a company employee. It doesn&#039;t know your culture, your legacy systems, or your specific internal jargon. Here is how you fix it.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;img  src=&amp;quot;https://images.pexels.com/photos/36766698/pexels-photo-36766698.jpeg?auto=compress&amp;amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;amp;h=650&amp;amp;w=940&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;max-width:500px;height:auto;&amp;quot; &amp;gt;&amp;lt;/img&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; 1. Start with the &amp;quot;What’s the Risk&amp;quot; Test&amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Before you fix a single sentence, you must apply the most important question in my toolkit: What is the risk if this is wrong?&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; I hate performative paperwork—the kind of review cycles that exist just to say we &amp;quot;did a review.&amp;quot; But when it comes to AI, you need a risk-based validation strategy. Not all content deserves the same level of scrutiny. If the AI hallucinates a typo in a fun &amp;quot;welcome to the team&amp;quot; video, it’s annoying. If it hallucinates a step in a compliance policy or a safety protocol, you are looking at potential litigation, audits, or workplace accidents.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;    Content Type Risk Level Validation Strategy     Corporate Values/Mission Low Peer review for tone; light brand alignment check.   Management Best Practices Medium L&amp;amp;D Manager review; check against leadership model.   Compliance/Safety/InfoSec High Legal/SME sign-off; manual verification of every citation.    &amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; 2. Managing Hallucinations: The &amp;quot;Intern&amp;quot; Mindset&amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;https://essaymama.org/how-do-i-validate-ai-content-for-regulated-training-topics/&amp;quot;&amp;gt;peer review vs AI validation tools&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Stop treating AI like an expert and start treating it like a hyper-confident, slightly delusional intern who has never stepped foot in your office. The AI will make things up to fill the gaps in its training data—this is what we call a hallucination. When you spot one, log it. My team keeps a shared spreadsheet of &amp;quot;AI Weirdness.&amp;quot; It helps us &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;https://fire2020.org/how-to-validate-ai-generated-training-visuals-a-10-year-ld-veterans-guide/&amp;quot;&amp;gt;https://fire2020.org/how-to-validate-ai-generated-training-visuals-a-10-year-ld-veterans-guide/&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt; identify patterns, like which prompts consistently lead to the model inventing nonexistent company policies.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h3&amp;gt; How to detect and prevent them:&amp;lt;/h3&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Constraint-based prompting: Do not ask the AI to &amp;quot;write training for a sales rep.&amp;quot; Tell the AI: &amp;quot;Use ONLY the attached policy document as your source. If the answer is not in the document, state that you do not have the information.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Citation forcing: Always force the AI to provide a source for its claims. If it can&#039;t cite a specific document or page number from your internal knowledge base, you cannot trust the example.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Fact-Checking Loops: If you are writing a high-stakes policy, treat the AI output as a draft. You must verify every single claim against your source of truth (e.g., your Employee Handbook or Tech Stack documentation).&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; 3. Mastering Example Rewriting for Context Accuracy&amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; AI struggles with internal context. It knows what a &amp;quot;project manager&amp;quot; is in the abstract, but it doesn&#039;t know how your specific project managers communicate in Slack or how your internal ticketing system works. When the AI gives you generic, lifeless examples, you have to perform a surgical rewrite.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;iframe  src=&amp;quot;https://www.youtube.com/embed/lZgjM0nzRF8&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;560&amp;quot; height=&amp;quot;315&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: none;&amp;quot; allowfullscreen=&amp;quot;&amp;quot; &amp;gt;&amp;lt;/iframe&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Example Rewriting Tips:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ol&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Strip the Generics: Remove phrases like &amp;quot;in the fast-paced world of...&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;it is essential to remember...&amp;quot; These are AI filler words that scream &amp;quot;I didn&#039;t actually read your culture.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Inject Real Data: Swap the AI’s placeholder names for real team names or specific internal systems. If the AI suggests &amp;quot;Update the CRM,&amp;quot; change it to &amp;quot;Log the lead in Salesforce and trigger the &#039;New Account&#039; workflow.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Localize the Tone: Does your company use &amp;quot;folks,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;team members,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;colleagues&amp;quot;? Ensure the examples match the way people actually talk in your hallways. If the AI uses passive voice, kill it. Active voice creates clear accountability—something AI rarely prioritizes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; 4. SME Validation: Stop Saying &amp;quot;Looks Good to Me&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; I have a visceral reaction to &amp;quot;looks good to me&amp;quot; feedback. It’s the death of quality assurance. When you bring an SME into the loop to review AI-generated content, you must design the review process to force actual engagement. If you send a 40-page PDF, they will scan it, miss the mistakes, and sign off because they are busy.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h3&amp;gt; Designing a Better SME Review:&amp;lt;/h3&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Break the content into small, high-stakes chunks. Create a specific checklist for the SME rather than asking for general feedback.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;img  src=&amp;quot;https://images.pexels.com/photos/33266833/pexels-photo-33266833.jpeg?auto=compress&amp;amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;amp;h=650&amp;amp;w=940&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;max-width:500px;height:auto;&amp;quot; &amp;gt;&amp;lt;/img&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Your SME Review Checklist:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Does this scenario accurately reflect our current workflow? (Yes/No)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Are the technical terms used in the correct context? (Yes/No)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Would a new employee actually be able to execute this task based on this description? (Yes/No)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Is there any information here that violates our current policy? (Yes/No)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; If they answer &amp;quot;No&amp;quot; to any of these, require a comment explaining the fix. This turns the SME review from a &amp;quot;rubber stamp&amp;quot; task into an active validation session.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; 5. The Importance of Ownership&amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Finally, we have to talk about accountability. The biggest danger of AI in L&amp;amp;D is the &amp;quot;diffusion of responsibility.&amp;quot; When an AI writes a bad training module, people blame the tool. But the tool isn&#039;t the one shipping the content—you are.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Every piece of AI-assisted content must have a named owner. If you are the L&amp;amp;D practitioner responsible for that module, your name goes on it. You are the final line of defense against inaccuracy. If you don&#039;t have the time to verify the content, you don&#039;t have the time to ship it. It is that simple.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; AI is a tool, not a teammate. It can help you draft faster, but it cannot take the place of your deep knowledge of the company’s systems, culture, and compliance requirements. By implementing a risk-based validation strategy, logging hallucinations, and forcing meaningful SME engagement, you can leverage AI without compromising the integrity of your training.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Now, go check that last draft. I bet there’s a hallucination hiding in paragraph three.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/html&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Adam.price4</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>