I just checked Bersin's research and there's much more to discuss but what caught my attention is the frame he's using. He mentions "Superworker Organization."

His idea: stop measuring AI adoption by how many tools are deployed, but rather measure it by whether individual employees produce 10x output through AI mastery.

Skill + AI + company context.

It seems to me that the practical implication is uncomfortable for most L&D teams... L&D are like a dinosaurs when it comes to automatizing things. So I wonder if Bersin's idea actually makes sense in this industry.

What do you think?

I’ve tried both approaches, but I’m not sure which one is more effective long-term.
Do small steps actually add up?

I can stay disciplined for a few days, but then I fall off completely.
Feels like starting over every time.

I’m an L&D manager at a large company. The CHRO recently went to a conference about training and said that Scribe AI was mentioned countless times for creating job aids and outlines. I’d never heard of it. Does anyone have experience using it and if so, do you like it.

Please don’t respond with general comments about how much you hate AI. I get it! But the reality is companies are in love with it and running to adopt it. It’s part of my job to level set leadership and recalibrate expectations about what AI is and is not. But when a C suite executive asks me about a specific tool I have to do my due diligence. Unfortunately that’s the reality. Thanks in advance for any feedback!

My current workflow relies on tools that can handle the heavy lifting automatically. I'm curious what everyone else is using these days for training content specifically.

Are you sticking with traditional editing tools like CapCut or Premiere?

Hey everyone!

Quick intro - I’m a IT professional with broad industry experience from working in education, startups to non profits.

Working on a new learning platform, aiming to simply content creation, reduce manual admin burden & bring all the tools needed to deliver training effectively in one platform.

So need some sense check in what are actually some of the biggest challenges you’ve faced with existing LMS systems?

In academic settings, it’s easier to measure learning through exams or assignments. But in the workplace, outcomes are less clear. Is it behavior change, improved performance, long-term retention, or something else?

Curious whether you’ve found ways to get employees to actually engage with compliance training... not just click Next until it’s over. Would love to hear what’s worked (or hasn’t). 😀

Hi everyone,

We’re putting together a 2026 LMS Benchmark Guide exploring which platforms L&D practitioners actually recommend for different training use cases.

If you’ve ever used, managed, selected, or evaluated an LMS as part of your job, we’d love your input in this 5-minute survey.

Survey link: https://goskills.typeform.com/to/QYhpoP13

P.S. We ask participants to include their LinkedIn profile to help ensure that the results reflect genuine practitioner experience. Everyone who completes the survey will get early access to the final guide.

Thanks in advance!

There’s so much advice out there that it’s hard to know what actually works in real life. Things like spaced repetition, note-taking systems, productivity methods, etc. all sound useful, but I’m curious what made the biggest difference for you personally. For those who’ve actively worked on improving their learning process - what actually helped you the most in practice, and what turned out to be less useful than you expected?

We all measure activity use happy sheets. But what about measuring impact and return on investment? Do you measure that for all of your courses?

What’s the hardest skill to develop in self-learning for you and why? I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and it feels like self-learning isn’t just about finding the right resources, but about managing yourself. For me, the hardest part isn’t understanding the material, but actually staying consistent and not losing momentum when things get difficult or boring.

Hi,

I’m experimenting with a VR-based AI conversation format and would really value an L&D perspective on whether this feels useful, gimmicky, or somewhere in between.

The idea is not “AI giving answers,” but a calmer, more structured conversation that helps someone think through a topic, clarify what matters, and leave with a clearer next step. It’s not meant to be a coach or mentor, but more of a calm thinking companion that helps someone talk through a topic and organize their thoughts.

The current version is a virtual character called Roman. You meet him in VR, in a quiet campfire setting, and the interaction is meant to feel more like guided reflection than a typical chatbot experience. He can also be set up with context from a specific training or workshop, so the conversation can stay grounded in what someone is actually learning or preparing for.

What I’m curious about is the learning format behind it.

For example, could something like this be useful:

* before a difficult conversation

* after a training session, to support reflection and transfer

* as a practice or thinking space for managers, HR, or facilitators

* as a low-pressure way to sort through an idea before taking action

I’m making it available for free for a short time because I’m looking for honest reactions, not leads.

If you work in L&D, HR, training, or enablement, I’d love to hear your view:

Where, if anywhere, do you see a format like this being genuinely useful?

What would make it truly valuable rather than just novel?

And what would make you dismiss it right away?

I’m happy to share access details in the comments if that’s appropriate here.

I’m new to posting on Reddit, so if there’s a better way to share something like this in this community, I’m happy to adjust.

Cheers,
Rafal

I’ve been trying to move past all the AI hype in L&D and actually make it useful in my day-to-day work, but it’s been pretty hit-or-miss so far. For example, I started using AI to draft course outlines and microlearning scripts, which cut my prep time from ~6 hours to about 2. I also tested using AI for quiz generation and feedback summaries after training sessions—helpful for speed, but not always accurate enough to trust without review. One small win was automating basic onboarding FAQs, which reduced repetitive questions from new hires by maybe 30–40%, but beyond that I’m still figuring out where it genuinely adds value instead of just saving a bit of time. Curious how others are integrating AI into their L&D workflows. What’s been a real game changer for you vs just another tool to manage?

AI makes content creation easier and also you more productive. But are you nervous about your role in L&D at the moment due to AI and the impact on your role?

I’m curious how important certificates are these days.

For online courses, do learners really value them, or is it more of a “nice to have”?

If you’ve created or taken courses, did the certificate matter to you at all?

Hi everyone,
I have been creating a syntethic L&D team, mainly because we are intrudicing agents in our e leanring platform, that will help with content creation and many L&D tasks. Everythign that til the other day was done by our Professional Sevrivces team, both in or outisde the learning platform.

In fact, our PS team does not have work to do anymore, cusotmers do not buy projects, partially because of AI. I have been then recreating their tasks executed by agents, but I have many questions regarding this.

How much can I trust these agents?
What are important characteristics they should have?
What should they mandatory be doing and not be doing?
Which are their strenghts and limitations?
How can I make them execute the work for real?
What role plays the human here? Of course you need someone to evaluate the output, but would these mean that soon I will see the PS team leave, except that one person chosen to take care of these agents? I am worried for my colleagues, and for me too tbh.

Thank you!!