Does online AI literacy training count for Article 4?
Yes. Article 4 asks for measures that support AI literacy and says nothing about the room they happen in. A live online session that covers your tools, your roles and their specific risks, and that leaves a record, meets the duty as well as an in-person one. A recorded video nobody discusses is the weaker option in either format.
What the law and the Commission actually say about format
Nothing. Article 4 requires providers and deployers to take measures to support the development of AI literacy, taking into account the technical knowledge, experience, education and training of the people concerned and the context in which the systems are used. The European Commission's Q&A on AI literacy says training is one option among other guiding initiatives, and that no certificate is required; organisations can keep an internal record of trainings and other initiatives. It does warn that simply relying on a system's instructions for use, or asking staff to read them, might be ineffective. That warning applies to what a measure contains, in any format.
Live online versus in person
| Live online | In person | |
|---|---|---|
| Calibration to your tools and roles | Same, if the trainer has done the inventory first | Same |
| Attendance record | Automatic from the platform, exportable | Sign-in sheet |
| Multi-site and hybrid teams | One session for everyone, no travel | One site per session |
| Hands-on with your own tools | Screen share of the tool people actually use | Same, if the room has the kit |
| Discussion and objections | Works with small breakout groups; harder with a hundred people on mute | Easier to read the room |
| Cost and disruption | Lower, and no travel day | Higher, and a room to book |
| Policy drafting workshop | Shared document works well | Whiteboard works well |
Neither column wins outright. Calibration, in the first row, is what Article 4 asks about, and it is the same in both.
Where online training goes wrong
The failure to watch for is the generic library course assigned to everyone with a completion tick box. That fails the Commission's fourth step, which asks you to build your literacy actions on an analysis of your own role, your systems and their risks, and it produces a record that says nothing about your context. A live session where the trainer has your tool inventory in front of them and the people on the call are the people who use those tools does the opposite.
What to ask a provider, whichever format you choose
- Will you look at our actual tool inventory before the session?
- Will the session name our tools and their specific failure modes, hallucination for the chatbot and ranking bias for the screening feature?
- Will different roles get different depth?
- What record do we have at the end, and does it explain why that depth suited those people?
We deliver every tier online or in person in Ireland, and the record you leave with is the same in either format.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the AI Act, Article 4 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.
- European Commission, AI literacy: questions and answers, questions on whether training is mandatory, on certificates and on the four-step approach.
This is general information about the EU AI Act, not legal advice. Enforcement is proportionate and case by case, and your sectoral regulator may issue guidance that applies to you.
