Who Owns the "Yes"? The Three Questions That Make or Break AI Governance
Impossibile aggiungere al carrello
Puoi avere soltanto 50 titoli nel carrello per il checkout.
Riprova più tardi
Riprova più tardi
Rimozione dalla Lista desideri non riuscita.
Riprova più tardi
Non è stato possibile aggiungere il titolo alla Libreria
Per favore riprova
Non è stato possibile seguire il Podcast
Per favore riprova
Esecuzione del comando Non seguire più non riuscita
Who Owns the "Yes"? The Three Questions That Make or Break AI Governance
-
Letto da:
-
Di:
The episode makes three points:
- Who signs off: the business owner owns the yes. An independent second line (risk, compliance, privacy, model validation) owns the “not yet.” Its real power is refusing or attaching conditions to validation.
- Who can stop it: US federal policy and the EU AI Act spell this out most clearly. Under the White House AI memo (M-25-21), only the agency’s Chief AI Officer can let a non-compliant system keep running, and that power can’t be delegated. Under the EU AI Act, the provider builds the stop button (Art 14) and the deployer decides when to suspend use (Art 26(5)). Microsoft and IBM’s review boards mostly attach conditions rather than veto. Hosts recommend agreeing stop triggers before launch.
- Combined risk across business lines: your follower is right. US bank guidance tracked “aggregate model risk” for 15 years, but the April 2026 replacement for SR 11-7 (SR 26-2) leaves generative and agentic AI out of scope. Vendor concentration is real: in UK finance the top three providers account for 44% of named model providers.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione