In a growing recognition of the complexities surrounding artificial intelligence governance, Choi has proposed the establishment of a steering committee comprised of senior executives, including the CEO, CFO, CIO, and heads of legal departments. This initiative is seen as essential for effectively evaluating business risks and opportunities, understanding customer and partner impacts, and considering potential ramifications on brand reputation.
Kang echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the oversight teams responsible for compliance with the AI Basic Act may vary based on a company’s size and organizational structure. For firms directly developing AI technologies, dedicated teams may take the lead in compliance efforts. Conversely, companies with significant regulatory expertise might lean on their legal or compliance departments. Kang points out, however, that the Act’s stipulations regarding safety, reliability, and regulatory adherence largely intersect with the responsibilities typically managed by security and information protection teams. This overlap indicates that security organizations will likely act as the primary operational contact in many cases.
“The important issue isn’t which department takes the lead,” Kang stated, emphasizing that the integration of development, security, and legal teams is crucial. “What matters is whether these departments are organically connected and can effectively communicate how AI systems operate and where responsibility lies.” He advocates for viewing the response to the Act not as a task for a single department but as a collaborative effort that coordinates roles across various teams.
Kang added that while the AI Basic Act may currently appear as a collection of principles, its implications could evolve. “If disputes or incidents arise down the road, explainability could become a key benchmark for determining corporate liability,” he noted. This perspective underscores the importance of proactive measures in compliance and risk management as companies navigate the evolving landscape of AI legislation.
As firms grapple with the complexities of AI regulatory compliance, the formation of multidisciplinary teams may become essential. A collaborative approach could not only streamline compliance efforts but also enhance the overall integrity of AI systems within organizations. Stakeholders may find that integrating insights from various departments can lead to more robust governance and accountability frameworks.
The AI landscape is ever-changing, and as regulatory frameworks such as the AI Basic Act take shape, companies will need to remain vigilant in their compliance efforts. The success of these initiatives will depend on fostering an environment where collaboration and communication are prioritized across all levels of the organization. As businesses seek to align with regulatory expectations, the ability to demonstrate transparency and accountability in AI operations may become a pivotal aspect of sustaining competitive advantage in the market.
See also
OpenAI’s Rogue AI Safeguards: Decoding the 2025 Safety Revolution
US AI Developments in 2025 Set Stage for 2026 Compliance Challenges and Strategies
Trump Drafts Executive Order to Block State AI Regulations, Centralizing Authority Under Federal Control
California Court Rules AI Misuse Heightens Lawyer’s Responsibilities in Noland Case
Policymakers Urged to Establish Comprehensive Regulations for AI in Mental Health
