Tag Archives: ResponsibleAI

Ready for EU AI Act? Your framework probably isn’t. Here’s why.

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll be honest—I’ve watched too many smart teams stumble here. They bolt GenAI onto legacy model risk frameworks and wonder why auditors keep finding gaps. Here’s what I’m seeing work with CDOs navigating the EU AI Act:

You need segmentation, not standardization. Traditional ML, GenAI, and agents carry fundamentally different risks. Treating them the same is like using the same playbook for three different sports.

Start with an AI Management System — ISO/IEC 42001 for structure, 42005 for impact assessments, 42006 for auditability. Map it to NIST’s GenAI Profile + COSAIS overlays. This isn’t box-checking; it’s how you govern at scale without chaos.

Then segment your controls: ML needs drift monitoring and data quality checks. GenAI needs prompt-injection defenses and hallucination tracking. Agents? Autonomy caps, tool allow-lists, human-in-the-loop gates, sandboxed execution, full action logs. Use OWASP’s LLM Top 10 — your security team already speaks that language.

On EU AI Act compliance: GPAI obligations are phasing in now. Inventory your systems, classify them (general-purpose, high-risk, other), run fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk deployers, then choose your conformity path. Don’t wait.

Make it operational. Name control owners. Set SLAs. Track what matters—prompt-injection incidents, drift rates, task success, hallucination coverage, adoption rates, cycle-time savings. Require evidence (model cards, eval runs, logs) before promotion. Gate agent autonomy upgrades.

And frankly, treat anonymization as something you prove, combining technical (DP, SDC, k-anon) with organizational and process controls. Keep DPIA’s records updated per EDPB/ICO guidance.

If you’re piloting agents: cap autonomy first, scale second.

The teams moving fastest with focus aren’t skipping controls—they built the right ones from day one.

Which KPI tells you the most about your AI program’s health—risk metrics, performance indicators, or value creation? I’m especially curious what agent pilots are tracking beyond the basics.

Agentic Operating Models: from Pilots to P&L

Posted on by
Reply

We’re past the demo phase. Boards are asking a harder question: how do human-plus-agent workflows show up in cash flow—this quarter? There is a clear answer: The winners don’t “add an agent”; they redesign the work. That means owners, SLAs, guardrails, and value tracking—weekly. Not glamorous, just effective.

Here’s the short playbook I’d bring to the next ExCo:

  • Make Agents products. Name a product owner, publish SLAs (latency, accuracy, human-override rate), and set chargeback so value—and cost—land in the P&L.
  • Design human+agent flow, end-to-end. Pilots fail for organizational reasons. Tie every pilot to a customer metric and a service level from day one.
  • Build guardrails you can audit. Map risks to NIST’s Cyber AI Profile; log decisions, provenance, and incidents. “Trust” that isn’t evidenced will stall at Legal.

Does it pay?  Signals are real but uneven. A European bank modernization program cut 35-70% cycle time with reusable “agent components.” In KYC/AML, agent “factories” show 200-2000% productivity potential when humans supervise at scale. Klarna’s AI assistant handles  ~1.3M monthly interactions (~800 FTEs) with CSAT parity. Yet BCG says only ~5% are truly at value-at-scale, and Gartner warns ~40% of agentic projects could be scrapped by 2027. Operating model discipline determines who wins.

If I had 90 days:

  • 30: Inventory top 5 agent candidates; assign owners; baseline SLAs and override rates.
  • 60: Stand up an Agent Review Board (CIO/CDO/GC/CISO); add release gates and rollback.
  • 90: Ship two agents to production; publish a value dashboard (savings, cycle time, SLA hit rate) and decide scale/retire.

A candid note on risk: labor anxiety and model drift will erase ROI if we skip change management and runtime oversight. Bring HR and the 2nd line in early, and rehearse incidents like you would a cyber tabletop.

If we can’t show weekly value, SLA adherence, and audit-ready evidence, we’re still in pilot land—no matter how advanced the model sounds.

What would make your CFO believe – tomorrow – that an agent belongs on the P&L?

AI’s Black Box Nightmare: How EU IA Act Are Exposing the Dark Side of GenAI and LLM architectures

Posted on by
Reply

With the EU AI Act entering into force, two of the most 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 for high-risk and general-purpose AI systems (GPAI) are 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 and 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬. But current GenAI and LLM architectures are fundamentally at odds with these goals.
𝐀.- 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬:
* 𝐎𝐩𝐚𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬: LLMs like GPT or LLaMA operate as high-dimensional black boxes—tracing a specific output to an input is non-trivial.
* 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐡𝐨𝐜 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬: Tools like SHAP or LIME offer correlation, not causality—often falling short of legal standards.
* 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲: Minor prompt tweaks yield different outputs, destabilizing reproducibility.
* 𝐄𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐬: Unintended behaviors appear as models scale, making explanation and debugging unpredictable.
𝐁.- 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬:
* 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬: Models absorb societal bias from uncurated internet-scale data, amplifying discrimination risks.
* 𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚: Limits proper disparate impact analysis and subgroup auditing.
* 𝐍𝐨 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬: Open-ended outputs make “fairness” hard to define, let alone measure.
* 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 𝐄𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬: AI agents adapt post-deployment—biases can emerge over time, challenging longitudinal accountability.
𝐂.- 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬-𝐂𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐬:
* Trade-offs exist between 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬—enhancing one can reduce the other.
* No standard benchmarks = fragmented compliance pathways.
* Stochastic outputs break reproducibility and traceability.
𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, we urgently need:
• New model designs with interpretability-by-default,
• Scalable bias mitigation techniques,
• Robust, standardized toolkits and benchmarks.
As we shift from research to regulation, engineering 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐀𝐈 isn’t just ethical—it’s mandatory.