AI literacy in Ireland

The arrival of artificial intelligence in Irish workplaces and classrooms has created an urgent imperative for organisations and educational institutions to rapidly develop AI literacy amongst their people, or risk falling behind in an increasingly automated world. With the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act now in force, this is no longer merely a strategic consideration but a legal requirement. Yet the challenge extends far beyond simple compliance, touching on fundamental questions about how we learn, work, and think in an age of intelligent machines.

AI literacy, as defined by the EU AI Act, encompasses “skills, knowledge and understanding that allow providers, deployers and affected persons, taking into account their respective rights and obligations in the context of this regulation, to make an informed deployment of AI systems, as well as to gain awareness about the opportunities and risks of AI and possible harm it can cause” [1]. This signals a shift from viewing AI as a specialist technical domain to recognising it as a foundational capability required across all sectors and levels of society.

The legislative push

The EU AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, introduces binding obligations for organisations to ensure adequate AI literacy amongst their employees and those impacted by AI outputs [2]. The Act follows a phased approach to enforcement, prioritising higher-risk areas first, a pragmatic acknowledgement of the complexity involved in implementing such sweeping changes.

For Irish organisations, the legislative timing coincides with a period of rapid AI adoption. According to PwC’s 2025 GenAI Business Leaders Survey, 86 per cent of Irish business leaders believe AI will positively impact the national economy within five years, with more than half anticipating significant or transformative effects on their own operations [3]. Yet this enthusiasm is tempered by practical challenges. Fewer than a quarter of companies can point to meaningful profitability improvements despite widespread AI experimentation [4].

David O’Sullivan, Director of Privacy, Digital Trust and AI Governance at Forvis Mazars, argues that ensuring AI literacy “isn’t just about compliance — it reduces risk, fosters innovation and drives competitive advantage” [5]. The regulatory requirement, whilst demanding, presents an opportunity for organisations to build capability that delivers tangible business benefits beyond mere legal adherence.

Strategic imperative

Ireland’s position in the global AI landscape has strengthened considerably. A November 2024 report by Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence ranked Ireland sixth globally in terms of AI vibrancy per capita, ahead of technological powerhouses such as the UK, Israel and Sweden [6]. This achievement reflects deliberate policy choices, including the national AI strategy refreshed in November 2024, which builds on the original 2021 framework titled “AI — Here for Good” [7].

The refreshed strategy outlines seven strands addressing different aspects of AI development, with AI literacy featuring prominently across multiple domains. Strand one emphasises the importance of public trust, with the government committing to make AI literacy “an integral part of Ireland’s literacy, numeracy and digital literacy strategy 2024-2033” [8]. This ambitious goal recognises that AI literacy must extend beyond the workplace into broader civic engagement.

Leading global companies in AI development, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Microsoft and Google, have chosen Ireland as a strategic hub [9]. This concentration of AI expertise creates both opportunities and pressures for Irish organisations. Companies must compete not only with each other but with these technology giants for talent equipped with relevant AI capabilities.

Beyond one-size-fits-all

The most effective AI literacy programmes recognise that different stakeholders require different levels and types of knowledge. As O’Sullivan notes, “a one-size-fits-all approach to training rarely works” [10]. Foundational courses may suffice for employees with minimal AI interaction, whilst those developing AI systems require advanced technical training covering responsible AI, ethics and bias [11].

Kieran Harte, writing for the Irish Computer Society, outlines practical compliance steps that illustrate this stratified approach. Organisations must first evaluate current AI literacy levels, identifying gaps amongst staff and other affected persons involved in AI development, deployment and use [12]. Training must then be tailored to different roles. Management requires understanding of compliance and ethical considerations; developers need deep technical training; whilst general staff must grasp appropriate use cases and limitations [13].

Hands-on learning

Theoretical knowledge alone proves insufficient. O’Sullivan emphasises that “the best way to understand AI is to use it” [14]. Workshops, case studies and simulations help demonstrate AI’s practical impact, whilst sandbox environments allow safe experimentation [15]. This experiential approach mirrors broader educational trends recognising that active engagement drives deeper learning than passive instruction.

The value of practical application extends beyond individual skill development to organisational capability building. Companies implementing AI literacy programmes report significant benefits. One organisation documented in the EU’s AI Literacy Learning Repository saw a 30 per cent increase in AI training participation and a 65 per cent rise in AI tool utilisation [16]. These metrics suggest that effective training creates momentum, with initial adopters becoming advocates who encourage broader engagement.

Role-specific training ensures relevance. Finance teams, product managers and engineers interact with AI differently, requiring tailored approaches that address their particular workflows and challenges [17]. This specificity helps overcome the abstraction that can make generic AI training feel disconnected from daily work.

Education

Educational institutions face distinctive challenges in building AI literacy. Sean Nolan, business development manager for public sector at Agile Networks, draws parallels to historical technological disruptions: “There was a time when the calculator became pocket-sized, and this transformed how maths education worked. Maths changed from arithmetic to theoretical maths. I think AI will have a similar effect on education” [18].

Yet opinions diverge sharply on the appropriate response. Barry O’Sullivan, professor of computer science at University College Cork and member of the Government’s AI Advisory Council, urges caution. He warns that generative AI could “undermine the foundations of critical thinking, creativity and independent reasoning, the very skills that education is meant to foster” [19]. His concern centres on the writing process itself: “Writing is thinking, and if you’re not writing, you’re not thinking. There’s nothing like the writing process to help clarify your thoughts, and if you’re not doing that, if you’re just merely editing, it’s not the same thing” [20].

O’Sullivan cites MIT research finding that ChatGPT users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic and behavioural levels when writing essays compared to ‘brain only’ and ‘google search’ users [21]. The level of originality amongst the ChatGPT group proved extremely low, as did their ability to recall what they had written. EEG analysis revealed the ChatGPT group exhibited the least brain activity [22].

Steven Duggan, vice president of Terawe and former teacher, presents a more optimistic perspective. He views generative AI as “a powerful learning assistant, capable of personalising education in ways previously unimaginable” [23]. Duggan argues that AI enables movement away from “the notion of one size fits all, by using gen AI to produce content that is tailored to different ability levels within a diverse classroom” [24].

This tension between caution and enthusiasm reflects legitimate concerns about assessment integrity, student development and the fundamental purpose of education. Duggan acknowledges these challenges but advocates for adaptation rather than resistance: “I’ve been around education technology long enough to remember when teachers were saying, ‘we can’t let students have calculators and we can’t have computers in the classroom’. It doesn’t work” [25].

Critical thinking

The proliferation of AI-generated content has created an urgent need for critical evaluation skills. Dr Barry Scannell, partner in the Technology Group at William Fry and member of the Irish Government’s AI Advisory Council, warns that “AI content in our daily feeds is becoming common. Deepfakes, AI generated text, and synthetic video and images have become part of the online experience” [26].

Despite transparency requirements in the EU AI Act mandating that AI-generated deepfakes be marked as such, Scannell observes that “this doesn’t stop people from sharing, commenting on and reacting to it as though it was real” [27]. The failure is not technological or regulatory but cognitive: many users across different age groups and education levels are “simply not engaging with digital content in a critical manner” [28].

Jean Noonan, Assistant Lecturer at TU Dublin and member of the Digital Business Ireland Advisory Council, frames this as a broader educational challenge. Quoting George Orwell’s 1984 — “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words” — she asks whether AI is “empowering students or outsourcing the skills we aim to cultivate” [29]. AI literacy, she argues, “involves not only technical proficiency but also the ability to understand AI concepts, apply them across different contexts, and evaluate AI outputs” [30].

Organisational capacity

Effective implementation requires clear governance structures. Only 21 per cent of organisations have formal AI governance frameworks in place, and 69 per cent of business leaders do not believe AI will enhance shareholder trust in the coming year [31]. Yet there is strong support for regulation, with 86 per cent welcoming the EU AI Act as a necessary safeguard [32]. Risk management concerns are also widespread. Eighty-one per cent of respondents expect AI to increase cybersecurity risks over the next 12 months, whilst legal liabilities, reputational risks and misinformation feature prominently amongst leadership concerns [33].

Kate Colleary, founder and director of Pembroke Privacy, sees these challenges driving business opportunity. Her Dublin-based privacy consultancy has expanded from traditional data protection officer services into AI governance programmes and AI literacy training [34]. The company aims for 20 per cent revenue growth in 2026, reflecting growing demand for expertise in navigating the intersection of privacy regulation and AI deployment [35].

Continuous learning

AI’s rapid evolution demands ongoing engagement rather than one-off training interventions. O’Sullivan emphasises that “training should be ongoing with regular updates and refresher sessions to keep pace with advancements” [36]. This requirement for continuous learning extends beyond technical updates to encompass evolving regulatory expectations and emerging ethical considerations.

Organisations must balance immediate compliance needs with longer-term strategic capability building. McDonough notes: “Complying with the EU AI Act and ensuring AI literacy in your organisation will not be ‘finished’ in the next six months. Although compliance is achievable…monitoring, tracking and upskilling efforts will need to evolve continuously as the pace of AI change continues to accelerate” [37].

Moving forward

Ireland’s success in attracting AI investment, coupled with strong digital literacy rates, creates a foundation for leadership in AI adoption and deployment. Yet realising this potential requires sustained investment in human capability. The challenge extends beyond regulatory compliance to fundamental questions about education, work and human agency in an automated world. As Noonan observes, “the transformative power of AI in education has two sides to the coin, one of immense potential and the other of profound responsibility” [38].

Success will require collaboration between educational institutions and industry, between regulators and practitioners, and between technical specialists and domain experts. The EU AI Board’s promotion of AI literacy tools, public awareness initiatives and clarification of rights and obligations provides essential support [39]. Yet ultimately, organisations and institutions must take ownership of their AI literacy journeys, recognising that capability building represents investment in future competitiveness rather than mere compliance cost.

Ireland has positioned itself well in the global AI landscape. Whether this advantage translates into sustained competitive differentiation will depend substantially on how effectively the country develops AI literacy across its workforce and citizenry. The regulatory imperative provides impetus while the strategic opportunity provides motivation. The task now is execution.