AI and emerging tools are changing how learning is built, delivered and personalised. Some of it is transformative. Some of it is vendor hype dressed up as innovation.
This hub separates what actually works from what sounds impressive in a pitch deck. This hub, part of the Hungry Minds learning resources library, covers AI authoring, adaptive learning, personalisation, analytics and the emerging tools reshaping the field. Built for L&D leaders, learning designers and decision-makers evaluating where to invest and what to ignore.
South Australia’s AI royal commission, the NSW HSC assessment review and the federal Senate inquiry, and what they mean for workplace learning and L&D.
Read moreMIT research shows AI use weakens recall and neural engagement. What cognitive debt means for eLearning, assessment design and workplace training that…
Read moreWe show how Rise 360 now skips content a learner already knows, runs custom adaptive interactions and answers questions in the course. See what it takes.
Read moreAI in learning design speeds up production, but it won't fix poor thinking. See how Hungry Minds uses AI across every stage of the ADDIE model…
Read moreNavigating moral considerations in AI-assisted design As a learning designer, you hold immense power in your hands – the power to revolutionise…
Read moreNeed help with AI and emerging tools?
Let’s talkWe turned Clare Valley's service promise into a pick-and-mix learning campaign for cellar door teams, with eLearning, podcasts and job aids. See how.
Read articleAI in learning refers to the application of artificial intelligence, including generative AI, machine learning and natural language processing, to the design, development, delivery and evaluation of learning programs. It spans everything from AI-assisted content authoring to adaptive learning pathways that respond to individual learner performance in real time.
The hype cycle around AI in L&D is loud. Every platform claims to be “AI-powered.” Every vendor promises personalisation at scale. The reality is more nuanced: AI is genuinely useful for specific tasks (content drafting, data analysis, learner routing, feedback generation) and genuinely limited for others (instructional strategy, emotional intelligence, contextual judgement, quality assurance). Knowing the difference is the skill.
We use AI as a tool within our design process, not as a replacement for it. It accelerates research, drafting and iteration. It does not replace the instructional thinking, stakeholder collaboration and quality standards that make programs work. AI makes good designers faster. It does not make non-designers good.
Not every AI application in learning is ready for production. These are the areas where the technology is mature enough to deliver real value today, not in a future roadmap.
Generative AI (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) accelerates first-draft writing, brainstorming, scenario generation and question writing. It reduces blank-page time from hours to minutes. But it requires a skilled designer to prompt well, evaluate output critically and edit for accuracy, tone and instructional quality. AI drafts. Humans design.
AI excels at taking dense source material (policies, procedures, research papers, SME transcripts) and restructuring it into learner-friendly formats. It compresses, simplifies and reorganises faster than a human can, freeing designers to focus on sequencing, practice design and assessment.
AI can generate quiz questions, scenario stems and distractor options from source content at speed. The quality varies, and every item still needs human review for accuracy, ambiguity and alignment with learning outcomes. But as a starting point, it cuts assessment development time significantly.
AI-powered translation has reached a quality level that makes first-pass localisation viable for many content types. It still requires human review for cultural nuance, technical terminology and tone. But for large-scale multilingual programs, it reduces cost and timeline dramatically.
AI chatbots can answer learner questions, provide hints, explain concepts in different ways and offer practice feedback within a learning environment. When well-designed (scoped to specific content, with clear boundaries), they extend support beyond what a facilitator can provide at scale.
Machine learning can identify patterns in learner data that humans miss: drop-off points, common misconceptions, time-on-task anomalies, engagement clusters. This data informs iterative design decisions and helps L&D teams focus improvement effort where it matters most.
These technologies are not yet mainstream in most L&D environments, but they are maturing fast and worth understanding for medium-term planning.
Virtual and augmented reality create immersive practice environments for high-risk, high-consequence or hard-to-access scenarios: surgical procedures, hazardous environments, equipment operation, empathy-building experiences. The hardware and development costs remain high, but ROI is proven for specific use cases where real-world practice is dangerous, expensive or impossible.
The limitations matter as much as the capabilities. Overselling AI leads to poor implementation, wasted budget and learner experiences that feel hollow.
AI cannot diagnose a performance gap, determine whether training is the right intervention, choose between modalities based on context, or design a learning architecture that accounts for organisational politics, learner motivation and implementation constraints. Strategy remains a human skill.
AI generates plausible content that is sometimes wrong, sometimes biased, and sometimes subtly off-target. It cannot reliably verify its own accuracy, assess cultural appropriateness, or judge whether content meets regulatory requirements. Human review is non-negotiable for anything going to production.
The design process is relational. It involves navigating SME relationships, managing competing stakeholder priorities, reading political dynamics, and building trust with clients. AI has no role here.
Content dealing with sensitive topics (trauma, diversity, cultural safety, mental health) requires human judgement that AI does not possess. Tone, framing, language choices and representation decisions in these areas need lived experience and professional sensitivity, not pattern matching.
The pressure to "do something with AI" is real. But adopting technology without a clear learning problem to solve is how organisations waste budget and erode trust.
We use AI tools daily in our design and production workflow. We are not AI sceptics. We are AI realists. That means: using generative AI for research, drafting, ideation and iteration. Using it to accelerate, not to replace the instructional thinking that makes programs effective.
We also help clients navigate their own AI adoption: evaluating tools, establishing governance, piloting applications, and upskilling L&D teams to use AI effectively and responsibly. The goal is not to chase every new tool. It is to adopt the ones that genuinely improve learning outcomes and team capacity.
A government department exploring AI for policy-to-training translation has completely different requirements, risk profiles and governance constraints from a tech company using adaptive learning for onboarding. The technology is the same. The implementation strategy is not.
We have supported AI adoption conversations and implementations across government, health, corporate and education sectors. The approach is always the same: define the problem, evaluate the tool, pilot responsibly, and scale what works.
The things people ask us most. Got something else? We’re happy to chat.
Ask a question
