Still debating if HR has any role in technology?
We didn't need EU AI Act for it. Now we are being told to do exactly what we've been advising everyone on to do without having to be obligated and allot resources.
Article 4 of the law is AI literacy which is the responsibility of HR covering stakeholders no less than providers (developers) and deployers (customers mostly with caveat on expanded requirements, excluding personal non-professional use). These entities are called primary operators both upstream and downstream. Others are supply chain intermediaries including importers and distributors.
Literacy in technology is never a burden. From our experience, it held up the asset category. End-users would benefit from it, they could establish a behavior to initiate and learn what their role is about when it comes to the system they are using, big savings here you can see. They help spot operational defects, it's the most significant value everyone can contribute more than you can imagine, before technology guys even notice it. Operational velocity becomes a no brainer. Not just reliability, resiliency, governance or whatever term most preferable to your liking.
We must know that technology literacy can be a natural progression to AI which is really a breed (see models LLM, VWM, VLA, WAM) on its own. The disparity in between technology practitioners, developers, users and the spectators can be narrowed down, constantly, that may even entirely eliminate shocks in the system when new ones arrived.
Comments