Speakeasy on CISO Series Podcast

Coming up next, if every AI use case goes through the same committee, your governance is both too slow and too weak. This AI governance and AI security tip is sponsored by Speakeasy. Here's a pattern that stalls AI programs. Every AI idea, from internal models used by HR to customer-facing chatbot agents get funneled into one committee that reviews them all the same way. The trivial cases wait months. The genuinely dangerous ones get the same rubber stamp as the rest. As the way you handle oversight is the same no matter the AI use case, you're in for a world of hurt. Mature programs tier their AI by risk and match the level of scrutiny to the tier. The EU AI Act uses this as a basis for its core logic. Some uses are prohibited outright. High-risk uses carry heavy obligation like human oversight and documentation, and low-risk uses carry almost none. NIST's AIRMF says the same on the accountability side, that governance needs clear roles and named owners, not diffuse committee consensus. So classify your use cases before you review them and route the high-risk ones to real scrutiny while letting the low-risk ones move. And for each AI system, name a single accountable owner, one person who answers for its risks. Shared accountability is just another way of saying nobody is accountable. Go to speakeasy.com to see how leading enterprises are scaling AI securely with the Speakeasy AI control plane.