Retaining human judgement

How can you exercise critical thinking, creativity and judgement when faced with AI proposals?

1250 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

This half-day session of 3 hours raises awareness of essential human skills when AI suggests answers or recommendations. Through a fictional case study, participants learn to question a proposal, imagine alternatives and explain a decision, without confusing fluent writing with reliability and human relevance.

Why this training?

A fluent answer can give an impression of certainty even when it rests on partial information or implicit assumptions. Critical thinking helps distinguish facts, interpretations and elements to verify before adopting a recommendation. When AI makes it easier to generate ideas, the human contribution remains crucial for exploring overlooked perspectives, listening to those concerned and weighing conflicting interests. These skills are strengthened through reasoned debate, not just knowledge of the tools. Ongoing case study: The fictional media library Rivage des Pages is considering replacing part of its telephone reception service with automated assistance. A recommendation presented as coming from AI advocates a significant reduction in telephone service hours. Participants examine its assumptions, users' needs and several alternatives before advising management. Transfer to the workplace: The next time you read AI-produced content, apply three questions: what do we actually know, what other option exists, who experiences the consequences? Then share an identified assumption and the necessary verification with a colleague.

Objectives of this training

  • Distinguish automated assistance from a decision that entails human responsibility.
  • Identify unsupported claims and implicit assumptions.
  • Formulate several alternatives to an initial recommendation.
  • Compare options according to their consequences for different people.
  • Justify a choice by making its limitations and the necessary checks explicit.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Employees in any role discovering the influence of AI on professional choices.
  • Managers and support functions wishing to open a collective dialogue on human responsibility.

Prior skills

  • No prior knowledge of AI required.
  • No experience of a conversational assistant or technical skills expected.

What you will work on

  1. Identify what remains human

    Objective: Distinguish producing an answer from responsibility for the choice. Accessible reference points on generative AI; difference between plausible wording and verified knowledge; role of context and values.

  2. Question a convincing recommendation

    Objective: Detect shortcuts that weaken a proposal. Automation and confirmation biases; distinction between observation, interpretation and conclusion; search for missing information.

  3. Create without following the first idea

    Objective: Broaden the possibilities before selecting a solution. Separation between exploration and selection; change of perspective; listening to and reformulating needs.

  4. Weigh up options and explain your reservations

    Objective: Defend a decision without concealing uncertainty. Criteria for accessibility, service quality and workload; constructive disagreement; possibility of deferring an insufficiently supported decision.

What you take away

  • Annotated ‘Facts, assumptions, checks’ grid.
  • Collective map of alternatives and users' needs.
  • Reasoned decision-making sheet with explicit reservations.
  • Personal card of the three vigilance habits.

Method and assessment

  • Short inputs followed by immediate practice on the ongoing case study.
  • Individual work followed by work in pairs, with cross-review of outputs.
  • Guided group discussion: what works, what needs to be corrected, what remains a human decision.
  • Preparation: Identify a situation where a convincing answer warranted verification, without bringing confidential data. Prepare the materials for the fictional case study; any digital use remains limited to tools authorised by the organisation.

Observable criteria: The participant distinguishes at least one documented fact from an assumption in the case file. ; They formulate two targeted verification questions. ; The group proposes three genuinely different options. ; The reasoning considers two categories of users and one adverse consequence. ; The final decision mentions an uncertainty and a human accountable for it..

Frequently asked questions

Do we need to use AI during the workshops?

No. Prepared answers allow participants to work on judgement without an account or technical操作.

Can we work on our professional situations?

Yes, in discussion, using anonymised situations only; the exercises are based on the fictional case study provided.

Will we learn to write prompts?

No. The priority is to assess a proposal, broaden the options and take responsibility for a human judgement.

How is progress observed?

Through annotations, the alternatives produced and the final reasoning, with collective feedback against the stated criteria.

Last updated: