- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Neil Hodge2019-06-05T18:07:00
Transparency for all AI-generated decisions is not as important as context, according to new research from U.K. data regulator the Information Commissioner’s Office.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
Any product that uses AI needs to be safety assessed for its entire lifespan under new rules that went into effect recently across the EU. Experts warned companies using AI to tailor products could be classed as “manufacturers” and face the same duty of care as developed.
Formic, which specializes in robotics, industrial automation, and manufacturing, announced the addition of Todd Plotner as the company’s first general counsel.
Technology company Thumbtack announced the addition of Susan Rammelt as chief legal officer.
Data governance has become a key concern for companies, especially when the EU AI Act and General Data Protection Regulation have put a premium on handling data responsibly and ensuring that artificial intelligence does not cause harm.
The era of artificial intelligence adoption is testing the old ways of doing compliance, underscoring the need for continuous monitoring. Compliance isn’t a one-and-done activity, but sometimes organizational incentives and goals fail to prioritize the importance of this.
While companies are exploring and building artificial intelligence technology, lawmakers and regulators are trying to identify what ground rules they need to set. These guardrails are what companies and governments alike believe are essential parts of ensuring safe and responsible use of the technology.
