Is Predictive Index Artificial Intelligence?

With a continuous trend of technology in the workplace and equal concerns about equality, safety, and validity of tech tools, many questions have surfaced regarding use of AI in the workplace, with the EU generating the world’s first set of regulations regarding Artificial Intelligence. This article will address Predictive Index^® tools and assessments as it relates to technology in the workplace. 

Okay, but first, what even is AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a field of computer science that focuses on building smart machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI is a machine’s ability to perform cognitive functions that we associate with human minds, such as perceiving, reasoning, learning, interacting with an environment, problem-solving, and even exercising creativity. Additionally, what separates AI from human minds is that AI can only draw from pre existing sources (or their defined database) and can’t generate completely new and unique content.

Is the Predictive Index AI?

Short answer, no. The Predictive Index assessments and reports use algorithms based on years of data accumulated by the science team. The assessment input results in a fixed set of data that is translated into actionable steps in your tools and reports. The different tools and reports (Personal Development Chart, Management Strategy Guide, Team Discovery tool) provide customized insights that are configured based on the makeup of the PI Behavioral Assessment, but there’s no machine learning involved.

Then What is Obi?

You may have heard about Obi, The Predictive Index’s behavioral intelligence assistant (currently in Beta). Obi is an AI chatbot, so it is worth being clear about what it is and, just as importantly, what it does not touch.

Obi is an added tool that sits on top of your existing PI data. Think of it as an assistant that helps leaders act on behavioral insights faster, whether that is drafting a coaching plan, preparing for a difficult conversation, or turning a behavioral pattern into practical next steps. Obi does use artificial intelligence to provide insights, tips, questions, and action items based on PI data. What Obi does not do is change how the assessments work. The PI Behavioral Assessment and PI Cognitive Assessment still run on the same fixed, closed-system algorithms described above. Your results are scored exactly as they always have been, and no machine learning is involved in producing your pattern or your reports.

A few things worth knowing about how Obi is built:

• It runs on real PI behavioral science, trained on actual PI factor combinations and patterns rather than generic reference profiles.
• It is private by default. Your organization’s data stays within your organization, and conversations align with each user’s existing permissions.
• It is a closed, in-house system. Obi does not pull from the open web, and your data is never used to train outside AI models.

For HR and people leaders, this is the part that matters: Obi helps you scale the value of PI across your managers without adding to your own workload, while the underlying assessment science stays exactly as validated as it was before.

Want the fuller picture of what Obi changes about people leadership? Read more here: From Insight to Action: What Obi Changes About People Leadership.

Why This Matters 

The tools you use need to be safe and valid for the workplace. The European Union has recently passed the EU Artificial Intelligence Act which is the world’s first set of regulations concerning AI. The EU AI Act aims to ensure better conditions for the development and use of AI technology, while also protecting users.

The Key

AI refers to systems that imitate human intelligence, learn from data, and can make decisions independently. Man-made computer algorithms, on the other hand, are fixed sequences of instructions that solve specific problems and lack the ability to learn or adapt.

PI is Safe for Work: PI treats validation as an ongoing process. PI scientists are continuously adding to a portfolio of validation research, which currently includes more than 350 validity studies. 

PI’s assessments and recommended practices comply with:

• Uniform Guidelines for the Development and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures
• (1978)
• American Psychological Association (APA)
• Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)
• International Test Commission (ITC)

In addition, the PI Behavioral Assessment™ and PI Cognitive Assessment™ are certified under the European Federation of Psychologists’ Association’s (EFPA) Test Review Model.

Can AI be used to cheat on the PI Behavioral Assessment?

Currently, no, though it is worth understanding why, since AI tools change quickly.

The PI Behavioral Assessment is designed for the human brain, and there are no right or wrong answers. The questions (and the words you can select) are findable with a quick search, and there are even articles on how to prepare. When we tested generative AI tools, they could not reliably predict the output of the Behavioral Assessment. When asked to suggest answers, most chatbots returned either a general statement about the assessment or background information about Drives and Factors pulled from the PI website.

For example, Google’s Gemini (formerly Bard) and Perplexity both declined to give a usable set of answers, offering directions and general advice instead.

In one test, we asked an earlier version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) for answers that would produce a specific pattern (Persuader). It answered confidently, but its suggestions did not match the actual assessment. It proposed 15 words to select, yet only six of the suggested words appeared on the assessment, and submitting just those six produced an Individualist result rather than the Persuader we were aiming for.

One caveat worth stating plainly: AI models have advanced since we first ran these tests, so a given chatbot may behave differently today. What has not changed is the structural reason the assessment resists gaming. Even someone trying to game it, or asking generative AI for answers, runs into a wall the web and chatbots cannot see past. They do not know the Job Target you have set for the role, so they cannot know what the preferred outcome even is.

Can AI be used to cheat on the PI Cognitive Assessment?

Again, no. The Predictive Index science teams continuously monitor for the ability to cheat, including whether test questions and answers are available on the web. The PI Cognitive Assessment is timed, so any outside resource, such as searching for a math question or asking a chatbot a verbal question, takes time away from the test-taker and lowers their overall score. The assessment also uses visual pattern questions. At the time of our testing these were not readable by AI chatbots, and while multimodal tools have improved since then, the timing constraint remains the core safeguard.

Our Recommendations

First, educate and communicate! Share how your organization uses PI internally and how you employ the data to improve both your candidate’s and your employees experiences.

Second, use Job Targets to increase validity of PI results for hiring and job matching. When you create a Job Target for a role, you can match candidate and employee behaviors to the role, which will allow you to interview and coach effectively.

In Summary: Predictive Index assessments do not use Artificial Intelligence

As AI continues to advance and grow in popularity, concerns about its equality, safety, and validity have arisen, leading to the introduction of regulations such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. However, it is important to differentiate between AI and tools like the Predictive Index (PI) assessments, which do not involve machine learning and instead rely on fixed algorithms based on accumulated data.

The safety and validity of PI tools have been addressed through ongoing validation processes and compliance with industry standards. Furthermore, attempts to cheat on the PI assessments using AI are currently ineffective due to the specific design of the assessments and the inability of AI chatbots to generate accurate responses. To maximize the effectiveness of PI and similar tools, organizations are encouraged to educate and communicate their usage internally and utilize Job Targets to enhance the validity of results for hiring and job matching purposes. Overall, while the concerns surrounding AI in the workplace are valid, the Predictive Index tools demonstrate a commitment to safety, validity, and ethical use.

This post was last updated on October 9, 2026.