Artificial Intelligence
September 02, 2026
The price of using AI without training
Technology adoption already reaches 88% of global organizations, while the number of professionals punished for using it without preparation has doubled in seven months

In the first semester of 2026, I taught artificial intelligence classes focusing on spreadsheets, dashboards, and presentations, in Barcelona, Spain. Among my students were lawyers and judges from the Il·lustre Col·legi de l’Advocacia de Barcelona, economists from the Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya, and administrative staff from the Acadèmia de les Ciències Mèdiques.
In the first few minutes of the first class, a student raised their hand and said:
– I’ve never used AI because I’m afraid and don’t know where to start.
This is the reality of the professional market. AI has entered institutions and companies in a disorderly manner. Employees discovered that there was an “assistant” called Copilot, Gemini, or Claude, capable of automating repetitive tasks and taking on part of their work. But how to start without training?
The cost of improvising with AI
Some students explored ways to interact with their new assistant; they asked simple questions, as they didn’t know what a prompt was. They asked for help responding to emails. The problem is that, without training, cases like the two I describe below ceased to be exceptions and are already appearing in courts in dozens of countries.
In February of this year, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, in Spain, imposed a fine of €420.00 on a lawyer for including 48 false citations of jurisprudence, generated by AI, in an appeal. In April, the General Council of the Judiciary of Spain imposed a fine of €1,000.00 on a judge who used ChatGPT in drafting a sentence.
The judge was discovered because he forgot to delete the ChatGPT queries from the text. A sign of unpreparedness when using the tool. The act was considered a serious offense, typified by article 418.8 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, due to the leak of data from the process and those involved.
These are not isolated cases. Damien Charlotin, a researcher at Hautes Études Commerciales Paris, maintains a public database that tracks judicial decisions involving AI-hallucinated content. In January of this year, the database registered 719 cases. By August, it already totaled over 1,900 cases. In about 650 of them, the signatory of the document was a lawyer. The remainder, in large part, are individuals who went to court on their own. In Brazil, there are 41 cases of fabricated decisions, false citations, or misrepresentation of real judgments.
Charlotin warns that only cases where the court found an error enter the database. Regarding Brazil, he was more specific in stating that Brazilian records are underestimated because the data from the Brazilian Judiciary is not so simple to access. The real number is higher.
The first agents
My students did not want to be part of this statistic. During the seven hours of training, with classes divided into 30% theory and 70% practice, I taught 60 professionals to improve their interaction with AI. In the end, those who arrived afraid were the last to leave. They stayed an extra 30 minutes experimenting, testing, and creating their first agents. They had many doubts and, with each success in their experiments, they felt more confident with this new way of working.
Enthusiasm, however, is not competence. The AI Index 2026, an annual report from Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI, measures this gap. The adoption of artificial intelligence in the surveyed organizations worldwide reached 88%, but responsible use does not keep pace.
The documented incidents of AI systems causing or nearly causing harm rose to 362 in 2025, up from 233 the previous year. And, in a new accuracy test, hallucination rates among 26 of the leading models ranged from 22% to 94%. In other words: no tool dispenses with the professional’s eye.
I also had to adapt to the profile of each institution and each student. The training was almost tailor-made. Furthermore, every month, the classes needed to be redone, because AI is evolving much faster than training. What I taught in June is already outdated, and this is the reality for those who teach and those who learn about artificial intelligence.
Europe takes a step back
Europe had already realized the problem. The AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, created in Article 4 a duty of AI literacy: those who provide and those who use these systems must ensure sufficient training for the people responsible for operating them.
The rule came into effect in February 2025. In July of this year, however, Europe backed down. the Digital Omnibus, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, rewrote this article. Where it read “ensure a sufficient level” of training, it now reads “adopt measures to support the development” of it, with the express caveat that no level is required to be guaranteed for any specific professional.
The obligation continues to exist, but it has lost the requirement for a specific outcome. And it is precisely there that the decision moves away from the law and returns to the institutions. They are the ones making the decisions. The same entities that invited me in the first semester requested continuity, with the addition of an intermediate-level course. At the same time, EUNCET Business School in Barcelona invited me to teach in the new MBA in Technology Management and Applied Artificial Intelligence, which begins in October.
I think a lot about the student who opened the first class saying he was afraid. He was more prepared than the lawyer from the Canary Islands, because he knew that he didn’t know. That’s why training isn’t about mastering the tool. In six months, or less, it will have changed. The crucial thing is to build the foundation with criteria and improve day by day. Artificial intelligence will not eliminate your job, but a lack of criteria will.
| To access the references of this text click here |
Who wrote this column
Marcelli D’Andrea








