Artificial Intelligence

Gartner just surveyed 350 large enterprises deploying AI. 80% cut jobs. Some by as much as 20%. The result? The companies that cut the most showed nearly identical financial returns to the ones that cut the least. In several cases, the ones that cut less performed better. No correlation between AI-driven layoffs and improved ROI. None. Gartner's Helen Poitevin was direct: "Workforce reductions may create budget room, but they do not create return." Cutting people frees up cash. It does not generate value. Most leadership teams are conflating the two. So what actually works? Upskilling staff to work alongside AI. Redesigning roles around what humans do well vs. what AI does well. Building operating models where people guide autonomous systems instead of getting replaced by them. There's a real difference between using AI to do the same work with fewer people and using AI to unlock work that was previously impossible. The first saves money on paper. The second compounds over time. We've already seen the pattern. Klarna cut 700 CS roles, watched quality decline, and started rehiring. IBM automated HR functions and reversed course. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia reversed 45 AI-driven layoffs after realizing those roles were never redundant. Gartner predicts half of companies that attributed headcount cuts to AI will rehire under new titles by 2027. If someone in your org is building an AI business case around headcount reduction, share this data. The assumption that fewer people equals better margins equals better returns is not supported by the evidence. AI is not leading to a jobs apocalypse. It's changing the shape of what people do. The companies that understand that difference will be the ones worth working for, and buying from, three years from now. Read the full piece on State of Brand here: https://lnkd.in/ggH-NXyM

🔮 AI Interaction Design Patterns (https://www.shapeof.ai), a fantastic (!) living catalog of emerging design patterns, heuristics, anti-patterns and real-life examples that shape the experience of AI — from identifiers and wayfinding to prompts, tuners and trust indicators. Incredible project by incredible Emily Campbell. 👏🏼 👏🏽 👏🏾 AI experience can go way beyond a text box. One of the most underrated yet impactful patterns for AI interfaces is the ability to tune AI experiences. This could show itself as a style lenses or temperature knobs — little tools to help users generate a more personalized output easier. E.g. Risky ↔ Risk-averse, Sad ↔ Happy, Concrete ↔ Abstract, Creative ↔ Precise. Instead of expecting large and highly detailed text prompts, we could slow people down when they prompt — e.g. with prompt constructors, prompt strength meters, presets or templates. Perhaps by defining an expected format, structure, personas, roles as checkboxes or chips — both for user input and AI responses (priming). Another much-needed feature is scoping. Users should be able to quickly scope their inquiry to a particular domain, level of expertise, sources or even a set of videos or PDFs. We need pre-screening of sources, and proactive alignment with users. These are features that would make output much more specific without having to write a long prompt. And: the AI output shouldn’t be bulky nor static. Users should be able to granularly iterate or revise little bits of it — e.g. by asking for sources of specific statements, or diverging from one view to another, or manipulating small parts of an image or a video. These refinements should happen not via text prompts, but contextually — acting on the relevant parts of AI outcome. We can go way beyond a text prompt. Better results come from combining good old-fashioned design patterns such as search, filtering and sorting with AI — to first find relevant and trustworthy sources, and then generate insights from them. That’s a great way to boost accuracy and make AI more relevant to more people. 💎 Design Patterns For AI Interfaces Prompt UX Patterns, by Sharang Sharma https://lnkd.in/eCytfAe9 Where should AI sit in your UI?, by Sharang Sharma https://lnkd.in/dyyMKuU9 AI UX Patterns, by Luke Bennis https://lnkd.in/dF9AZeKZ Design Patterns For Building Trust, by If https://lnkd.in/eEJngtVv AI Design Patterns Catalogue, by Maggie Appleton https://lnkd.in/ebAp9Sb8 --- 🚀 Fantastic AI Examples: Elicit (research tables): https://elicit.com Consensus (confidence levels): https://consensus.app/ Scispace (search + AI): https://scispace.com v7 Labs (AI auto-fill): https://v7labs.com/ Exa (semantic grid): https://exa.ai DeepL (translation): https://deepl.com NotebookLM (scoping): https://notebooklm.google/ [continues in comments] #ux #ai

Three AI recruiters look at the same 109 CVs. They agree only 14% of the time. That’s not the start of a joke. And that's not efficiency. That’s what I call 'Rank Roulette'. When I tested ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok against the same job spec and anonymised CV set, here’s what happened: • 14% overlap in shortlists → Four times out of five, the models disagreed. • ±2.5 places volatility → Yesterday’s #2 became today’s #5. • 55% of CVs never surfaced → Candidates vanished with no audit trail. • 96% recycled rationales → Fluent, but shallow logic. We’re told by vendors and in-house 'tinkerers' that LLMs can “shortlist in seconds”. The truth: they behave more like over-confident interns - smooth on the surface, but shockingly inconsistent. And the worst part? It’s not even random. In a follow-up piece, I explored why this happens: a technical quirk called batch non-determinism. In plain English: your candidate’s fate changes depending on what else the server was processing at that moment. Until volatility is tamed, hands-off AI screening with LLMs is more than risky. It’s completely unexplainable, indefensible and a governance nightmare. Go to the comments for 👉 Full research 👉 Follow-up on why AI recruiters play favourites

This week MIT dropped a stat engineered to go viral: 95% of enterprise GenAI pilots are failing. Markets, predictably, had a minor existential crisis. Pundits whispered the B-word (“bubble”), traders rotated into defensive stocks, and your colleague forwarded you a link with “is AI overhyped???” in the subject line. Let’s be clear: the 95% failure rate isn’t a caution against AI. It’s a mirror held up to how deeply ossified enterprises are. Two truths can coexist: (1) The tech is very real. (2) Most companies are hilariously bad at deploying it. If you’re a startup, AI feels like a superpower. No legacy systems. No 17-step approval chains. No legal team asking whether ChatGPT has been “SOC2-audited.” You ship. You iterate. You win. If you’re an enterprise, your org chart looks like a game of Twister and your workflows were last updated when Friendswas still airing. You don’t need a better model - you need a cultural lobotomy. This isn’t an “AI bubble” popping. It’s the adoption lag every platform shift goes through. - Cloud in the 2010s: Endless proofs of concept before actual transformation. - Mobile in the 2000s: Enterprises thought an iPhone app was strategy. Spoiler: it wasn’t. - Internet in the 90s: Half of Fortune 500 CEOs declared “this is just a fad.” Some of those companies no longer exist. History rhymes. The lag isn’t a bug; it’s the default setting. Buried beneath the viral 95% headline are 3 lessons enterprises can actually use: ▪️ Back-office > front-office. The biggest ROI comes from back-office automation - finance ops, procurement, claims processing - yet over half of AI dollars go into sales and marketing. The treasure’s just buried in a different part of the org chart. ▪️Buy > build. Success rates hit ~67% when companies buy or partner with vendors. DIY attempts succeed a third as often. Unless it’s literally your full-time job to stay current on model architecture, you’ll fall behind. Your engineers don’t need to reinvent an LLM-powered wheel; they need to build where you’re actually differentiated. ▪️Integration > innovation. Pilots flop not because AI “doesn’t work,” but because enterprises don’t know how to weave it into workflows. The “learning gap” is the real killer. Spend as much energy on change management, process design, and user training as you do on the tool itself. Without redesigning processes, “AI adoption” is just a Peloton bought in January and used as a coat rack by March. You didn’t fail at fitness; you failed at follow-through. In five years, GenAI will be as invisible - and indispensable - as cloud is today. The difference between the winners and the laggards won’t be access to models, but the courage to rip up processes and rebuild them. The “95% failure” stat doesn’t mean AI is snake oil. It means enterprises are in Year 1 of a 10-year adoption curve. The market just confused growing pains for terminal illness.

For decades, career growth followed a familiar formula: More headcount. More budget. More scope.  That model is changing. In the AI era, careers won’t be built on span of control, they’ll be built on innovation density. Today, anyone - from ICs to execs - can scale their impact without more headcount, more budget, or more time. The playing field is flatter. The differentiator? How fast you can learn, apply, and compound innovation with AI. If you’re thinking about career growth, stop asking: “How can I get more?” Start asking: “How can I innovate more with AI?” The people who rise fast will: See problems through an AI-first lens. Move from manual to scalable. Iterate faster than the rest. Your team size won’t define your trajectory. Your creativity will. Your budget won’t signal your value. Your innovation density will.

There’s a new breed of GenAI Application Engineers who can build more-powerful applications faster than was possible before, thanks to generative AI. Individuals who can play this role are highly sought-after by businesses, but the job description is still coming into focus. Let me describe their key skills, as well as the sorts of interview questions I use to identify them. Skilled GenAI Application Engineers meet two primary criteria: (i) They are able to use the new AI building blocks to quickly build powerful applications. (ii) They are able to use AI assistance to carry out rapid engineering, building software systems in dramatically less time than was possible before. In addition, good product/design instincts are a significant bonus. AI building blocks. If you own a lot of copies of only a single type of Lego brick, you might be able to build some basic structures. But if you own many types of bricks, you can combine them rapidly to form complex, functional structures. Software frameworks, SDKs, and other such tools are like that. If all you know is how to call a large language model (LLM) API, that's a great start. But if you have a broad range of building block types — such as prompting techniques, agentic frameworks, evals, guardrails, RAG, voice stack, async programming, data extraction, embeddings/vectorDBs, model fine tuning, graphDB usage with LLMs, agentic browser/computer use, MCP, reasoning models, and so on — then you can create much richer combinations of building blocks. The number of powerful AI building blocks continues to grow rapidly. But as open-source contributors and businesses make more building blocks available, staying on top of what is available helps you keep on expanding what you can build. Even though new building blocks are created, many building blocks from 1 to 2 years ago (such as eval techniques or frameworks for using vectorDBs) are still very relevant today. AI-assisted coding. AI-assisted coding tools enable developers to be far more productive, and such tools are advancing rapidly. Github Copilot, first announced in 2021 (and made widely available in 2022), pioneered modern code autocompletion. But shortly after, a new breed of AI-enabled IDEs such as Cursor and Windsurf offered much better code-QA and code generation. As LLMs improved, these AI-assisted coding tools that were built on them improved as well. Now we have highly agentic coding assistants such as OpenAI’s Codex and Anthropic’s Claude Code (which I really enjoy using and find impressive in its ability to write code, test, and debug autonomously for many iterations). In the hands of skilled engineers — who don’t just “vibe code” but deeply understand AI and software architecture fundamentals and can steer a system toward a thoughtfully selected product goal — these tools make it possible to build software with unmatched speed and efficiency. [Truncated due to length limit. Full post: https://lnkd.in/gsztgv2f ]

AI is not failing because of bad ideas; it’s "failing" at enterprise scale because of two big gaps: 👉 Workforce Preparation 👉 Data Security for AI While I speak globally on both topics in depth, today I want to educate us on what it takes to secure data for AI—because 70–82% of AI projects pause or get cancelled at POC/MVP stage (source: #Gartner, #MIT). Why? One of the biggest reasons is a lack of readiness at the data layer. So let’s make it simple - there are 7 phases to securing data for AI—and each phase has direct business risk if ignored. 🔹 Phase 1: Data Sourcing Security - Validating the origin, ownership, and licensing rights of all ingested data. Why It Matters: You can’t build scalable AI with data you don’t own or can’t trace. 🔹 Phase 2: Data Infrastructure Security - Ensuring data warehouses, lakes, and pipelines that support your AI models are hardened and access-controlled. Why It Matters: Unsecured data environments are easy targets for bad actors making you exposed to data breaches, IP theft, and model poisoning. 🔹 Phase 3: Data In-Transit Security - Protecting data as it moves across internal or external systems, especially between cloud, APIs, and vendors. Why It Matters: Intercepted training data = compromised models. Think of it as shipping cash across town in an armored truck—or on a bicycle—your choice. 🔹 Phase 4: API Security for Foundational Models - Safeguarding the APIs you use to connect with LLMs and third-party GenAI platforms (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.). Why It Matters: Unmonitored API calls can leak sensitive data into public models or expose internal IP. This isn’t just tech debt. It’s reputational and regulatory risk. 🔹 Phase 5: Foundational Model Protection - Defending your proprietary models and fine-tunes from external inference, theft, or malicious querying. Why It Matters: Prompt injection attacks are real. And your enterprise-trained model? It’s a business asset. You lock your office at night—do the same with your models. 🔹 Phase 6: Incident Response for AI Data Breaches - Having predefined protocols for breaches, hallucinations, or AI-generated harm—who’s notified, who investigates, how damage is mitigated. Why It Matters: AI-related incidents are happening. Legal needs response plans. Cyber needs escalation tiers. 🔹 Phase 7: CI/CD for Models (with Security Hooks) - Continuous integration and delivery pipelines for models, embedded with testing, governance, and version-control protocols. Why It Matter: Shipping models like software means risk comes faster—and so must detection. Governance must be baked into every deployment sprint. Want your AI strategy to succeed past MVP? Focus and lock down the data. #AI #DataSecurity #AILeadership #Cybersecurity #FutureOfWork #ResponsibleAI #SolRashidi #Data #Leadership

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝟵𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 It's not the models. It's not the data. It's the architecture. Across the industry, brilliant engineers build AI prototypes that work perfectly in Jupyter notebooks... then spend 6 months trying to productionize them. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺? Most AI projects start as experiments and never graduate to engineered systems. Here's what separates successful AI implementations from failures: 𝟭. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗹 When API keys, model parameters, and prompt templates are scattered across 12 different files, deployment becomes a nightmare. Successful teams separate their config completely from day one. 𝟮. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘁 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽 Teams treat prompts like throwaway code. Wrong. Your prompts ARE your product logic. Version them, test them, and organize them like the critical business logic they are. 𝟯. 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 That beautiful demo hitting OpenAI 100 times per second? It'll cost $500/day in production. Smart teams build rate limiting from day one, not as an afterthought. 𝟰. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁 Companies regularly spend $10K/month on API calls for repetitive queries. Intelligent caching can cut AI costs by 70%. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? Start with production architecture, not prototype architecture.

𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗵𝘆𝗴𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗲. Getting your house in order is the foundation for delivering on any AI ambition. The MIT Technology Review — based on insights from 205 C-level executives and data leaders — lays it out clearly: 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Therefore, many firms are still stuck in pilots, not production. Changing that requires strong data foundations, scalable architectures, trusted partners, and a shift in how companies think about creating real value with AI. Because pilots are easy, BUT scaling AI across the enterprise is hard. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: ⬇️ 1. 95% 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗜 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 76% 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 1–3 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀:   ➜ The gap between ambition and execution is huge. Scaling AI across the full business will define competitive advantage over the next 24 months. 2. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗸𝘀: ➜ Without curated, accessible, and trusted data, no AI strategy can succeed — no matter how powerful the models are. 3. 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗜 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴:   ➜ 98% of executives say they would rather be safe than first. Trust, not speed, will win in the next AI wave. 4. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱, 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲:  ➜ Generic generative AI (chatbots, text generation) is table stakes. True differentiation will come from custom, domain-specific applications. 5. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:  ➜ Firms sitting on fragmented, outdated infrastructure are finding that retrofitting AI into legacy systems is often more costly than building new foundations. 6. 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱: ➜ From GPUs to energy bills, AI is not cheap — and mid-sized companies face the biggest barriers. Smart firms are building realistic ROI models that go beyond hype. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲-𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗔𝗜 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲.   𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 — 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮, 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗢𝗜 — 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆.

🚨 AI Privacy Risks & Mitigations Large Language Models (LLMs), by Isabel Barberá, is the 107-page report about AI & Privacy you were waiting for! [Bookmark & share below]. Topics covered: - Background "This section introduces Large Language Models, how they work, and their common applications. It also discusses performance evaluation measures, helping readers understand the foundational aspects of LLM systems." - Data Flow and Associated Privacy Risks in LLM Systems "Here, we explore how privacy risks emerge across different LLM service models, emphasizing the importance of understanding data flows throughout the AI lifecycle. This section also identifies risks and mitigations and examines roles and responsibilities under the AI Act and the GDPR." - Data Protection and Privacy Risk Assessment: Risk Identification "This section outlines criteria for identifying risks and provides examples of privacy risks specific to LLM systems. Developers and users can use this section as a starting point for identifying risks in their own systems." - Data Protection and Privacy Risk Assessment: Risk Estimation & Evaluation "Guidance on how to analyse, classify and assess privacy risks is provided here, with criteria for evaluating both the probability and severity of risks. This section explains how to derive a final risk evaluation to prioritize mitigation efforts effectively." - Data Protection and Privacy Risk Control "This section details risk treatment strategies, offering practical mitigation measures for common privacy risks in LLM systems. It also discusses residual risk acceptance and the iterative nature of risk management in AI systems." - Residual Risk Evaluation "Evaluating residual risks after mitigation is essential to ensure risks fall within acceptable thresholds and do not require further action. This section outlines how residual risks are evaluated to determine whether additional mitigation is needed or if the model or LLM system is ready for deployment." - Review & Monitor "This section covers the importance of reviewing risk management activities and maintaining a risk register. It also highlights the importance of continuous monitoring to detect emerging risks, assess real-world impact, and refine mitigation strategies." - Examples of LLM Systems’ Risk Assessments "Three detailed use cases are provided to demonstrate the application of the risk management framework in real-world scenarios. These examples illustrate how risks can be identified, assessed, and mitigated across various contexts." - Reference to Tools, Methodologies, Benchmarks, and Guidance "The final section compiles tools, evaluation metrics, benchmarks, methodologies, and standards to support developers and users in managing risks and evaluating the performance of LLM systems." 👉 Download it below. 👉 NEVER MISS my AI governance updates: join my newsletter's 58,500+ subscribers (below). #AI #AIGovernance #Privacy #DataProtection #AIRegulation #EDPB