David Silverman

“We know the fraudsters are going to fraud. We’re gonna make it a little bit harder for them”. Elisabeth Bik Anna Abalkina Yagmur Ozturk & other science sleuths share tips for detecting dodgy papers. By Stephanie Melchor, PhD in Nature Magazine https://lnkd.in/gEvYE3cP

1

As AI advances in the enterprise, the technology function’s role will likely shift, according to U.S. Bancorp CIO Dilip Venkatachari. “Increasingly, IT teams are evolving from deployers of technology into facilitators of AI-enabled business value,” he says. #cio #ai #it #techvalue #techleadership #itstrategy #enterpriseai

1

ℹ️ Most boards approve technology budgets. Few boards understand what they approve. That’s not a criticism. It’s a structural issue that has existed for years. But with technology accelerating fast, it has become a real risk. and a potential liability. Boards approve technology budgets, AI strategies, and cybersecurity frameworks. But approval without understanding is not governance. It is hope dressed up as oversight. ℹ️ A board does not need to write code. But it must be able to challenge the risk model. ⚠️ If you cannot challenge the risk model, you cannot govern it. Research continues to highlight a capability gap at board level in cyber oversight. Now add AI. Many boards approve AI deployments without being able to assess risk, bias, controls, and liability in business terms. What I see repeatedly in boardrooms: 🔹One “tech-savvy” director carries the entire technology and AI agenda alone. That is not oversight. 🔹AI, cybersecurity, data governance, and data protection are treated as separate topics. They are not. An AI system is only as secure as the data, access, and controls behind it. 🔹Risk is approved without being understood. Regulation is raising the bar (e.g., NIS2, the EU AI Act, FINMA expectations). Technology governance is becoming more explicit — and the downside is real. 💡 Here is what concerns me most: At board events, many board member and executives agree this gap exists. Back at the office, not much changes. The reasons are familiar: “other priorities”, “we are too small”, “it takes too much time”, “it’s too expensive”. 👉 In the short term, that can work, with a bit of luck. In the long term, it becomes governance debt. And governance debt always comes due. ❓ What is your experience; does your board have genuine technology oversight, or is it performed oversight? ✴️ I help and support organisations and boards in building effective technology governance, so cyber and AI risk is translated into decisions the board can actually understand, challenge, and own. #BoardGovernance #TechnologyGovernance #CyberRisk #AIGovernance #RiskManagement #DataGovernance

7

The regulatory landscape for generative AI is evolving rapidly, with a mix of federal initiatives and a growing patchwork of state laws. While federal efforts are setting broad guidelines and tackling issues like deepfake content and copyright transparency, individual states are passing legislation that reflects their unique priorities—from consumer protection to employment practices. For organizations operating across multiple jurisdictions, navigating this environment requires a proactive approach to compliance, transparency, risk management, and ethical AI use. 👉 Here is a summary of the latest federal and state legislation in a table below to help you stay informed. Things are evolving quickly – what else is happening that I missed?? #GenAI #GRC #Compliance #RiskManagement

6

1 Comment