I’ve written extensively before about one of the biggest challenges facing, particularly, new AI governance professionals. These AI governance professionals are well equipped with lots of information about potential AI risks. Many of these folks got into AI governance because of AI risk.
The challenge itself is getting the reputation as Dr. No. This is the person in the organization who slows down processes, believes the organization should accept little to no risk, and is seen by others in the organization as an annoyance.
That’s Doctor No.
Now let me be super clear: while I’m being a little critical of that orientation, it’s absolutely necessary that AI governance professionals be assertive about what systems, processes, and use cases are not acceptable for AI.
That said, I think that there’s a way to reframe this. I got clarity on this during a presentation in our course office hours with our partners from VerifyWise.
The AI governance professional’s job can’t always be to say no. Instead, think about what safety guardrails, policies, and procedures would make it possible to say yes.
Maybe those guardrails make the use case untenable. That will happen some of the time. But most of the time, there’s a way to meet the goal while maintaining safety and compliance.
