SECURITY BREACH? CALL 888.234.5990 EXT 9999

CLIENT SUPPORT
CONTACT US
BLOG ARTICLE

What Are the Common Risks of AI in an Organization? And How to Be Ready

Table of Contents

Artificial intelligence is no longer a future promise. It is already embedded in how organizations hire, decide, recommend, detect, automate, and interact. Generative AI tools in knowledge work, machine‑learning models driving fraud detection or customer experience, and other news is changing the course of human history as we know it. And artificial intelligence (AI) is now a core of that trajectory.

Yet while adoption has accelerated at breakneck speed, governance and risk management have not kept pace.

Many organizations lack sufficient visibility on AI usage, or worse believe they are “using AI responsibly” because they have security controls, data privacy programs, or compliance teams. Unfortunately, AI introduces fundamentally different types of risk — risks that traditional IT, security, and governance models were never designed to fully address.

This gap is exactly why organizations must not only embrace the need for AI usage, but they must also drive revised AI safety and governance risk practices. It starts with a recognition that AI is not just another technology to secure, but a dynamic, probabilistic, decision‑influencing system that requires dedicated governance, risk, and designed controls.

This article explores:

  • The AI Risk Landscape – How AI impacts the risk profile of organizations
  • Managing AI risk – Establishing AI risk governance practices that integrate into your overall organizational AI strategy
Overall, we answer the questions, “Is AI dangerous?” and “How can we mitigate the risks of AI?

Part One: Understanding the AI Risk Landscape

What AI Tools Create Risk Today?

When people think about AI risk, they often think about advanced machine learning models or large language models. In reality, risk arises far earlier and far more broadly.

AI risk is created by any system that learns from data, makes probabilistic decisions, or generates outputs without deterministic logic.

Common AI tools introducing risk include:

1. Generative AI Platforms

Chatbots, copilots, code generators, image generators, and document summarization tools are now used daily across legal, HR, engineering, marketing, and operations. These tools:

  • May leak sensitive information through prompts or outputs
  • Can fabricate convincing but potentially false information, a form of large-scale disinformation at the individual workflow level
  • Often operate outside formal boundaries of an organization’s governance practices

2. Decision‑Support and Automation Systems

As the AI race rages, AI systems increasingly influence or automate decisions such as:
  • Credit approvals
  • Fraud detection
  • Hiring and promotion
  • Medical triage
  • Customer prioritization
Even when humans remain “in the loop,” their decision-making processes are heavily shaped by AI recommendations.

3. Embedded AI in Enterprise Platforms

Many organizations do not realize they are already using AI because it is embedded into:
  • Cloud platforms
  • Security tools
  • CRM and ERP systems
  • Supply chain software
This creates hidden AI dependencies with little internal visibility.

4. Shadow AI

Employees use publicly available AI tools outside approved workflows to save time and improve productivity. This often includes:
  • Pasting sensitive data into public models
  • Generating content without review
  • Creating unofficial code repositories and automation pipelines

5. Third‑Party and Vendor AI

Organizations may rely on AI:
  • As an API
  • As a managed service
  • Embedded in SaaS products
In all cases, the organization still owns the risk, even when it does not control the model.

Why AI Risk Is Different From Traditional IT Risk

Most organizations approach AI risk the same way they approach traditional IT risk: controls, vulnerabilities, patching, and compliance checklists. While these approaches remain valid, governing AI risk requires revised governance practices to address its differences from traditional technology. AI risk is different in five critical ways.

1. AI Is Probabilistic, Not Deterministic

Traditional systems behave the same way every time under the same conditions. Unlike human intelligence, AI does not adapt through judgment. Instead, it responds to statistical patterns in its training data.

  • Model state
  • Training data
  • Context
  • Prompts or user behavior

This makes it impractical to “lock down” AI behavior using static controls.

2. AI Learns and Changes Over Time

AI systems evolve as:
  • New data is introduced
  • Models are retrained
  • Context shifts
Risk therefore changes constantly after deployment. Many organizations may attempt properly scope and effectively secure AI at launch but fail to monitor drift, abuse, or emergent behavior.

3. AI Embeds Human Bias and Assumptions

AI does not introduce bias; it amplifies existing bias in:
  • Training data
  • Labels
  • Problem framing
  • Optimization goals
These biases can unintentionally expose organizations to reputational, legal, and regulatory risk.

4. AI Decisions Are Often Opaque

Traditional systems can be inspected and explained line by line. Many AI models cannot. This creates challenges in:
  • Auditability
  • Regulatory compliance
  • Incident investigation
  • Legal defense
When an AI output causes harm, organizations may be unable to explain why it happened.

5. AI Risk Is Socio‑Technical

Socio‑technical refers to the idea that technology and people cannot be understood, designed, or managed separately. AI risk is not purely technical. It arises from interactions between:
  • Technology
  • People
  • Processes
  • Incentives
  • Governance decisions
This makes AI risk a leadership and management problem, not just an engineering one.

What Are the Most Common Risks of AI in an Organization?

While AI risks vary by industry and use case, the commons risks can be grouped into several recurring categories.

1. Data Leakage and Confidentiality Risk

This risk should not be underestimated. The decentralized use of multiple, often open or externally hosted, AI models within an organization significantly increases the likelihood that employees may unintentionally disclose sensitive or confidential information.
  • Unintentional Disclosure via Prompts – This is a pervasive risk that occurs daily in many organizations, as routine AI use leads employees to unintentionally expose sensitive data.
    • Employees may include confidential, regulated, or proprietary data directly in prompts (e.g., source code, customer records, financials, incident details).
    • Prompts can contain compound data that appears harmless individually but becomes sensitive when aggregated.
    • Free‑text prompting encourages oversharing, especially under time pressure or exploration mode.
  • Data Retention and Secondary Use by Model Providers – Data submitted to external AI models may be retained, logged, or reused by the provider in ways that are outside the organization’s direct control. This includes health data, financial records, and other sensitive categories that organizations are legally obligated to protect. Input data may be retained or used for:
    • Model training or tuning
    • Debugging and service improvement
    • Safety monitoring and abuse prevention
    • Retention periods, deletion guarantees, and training opt‑out terms vary by provider and service tier.
    • Contractual protections often lag behind technical realities.
  • Loss of Data Control Beyond Organizational Boundaries – Submitting data to external AI platforms extends organizational risk exposure by placing sensitive information outside established security, governance, and oversight controls.
    • Once data leaves the organization’s environment:
      • Traditional data loss prevention (DLP) controls may no longer apply.
      • Encryption, access controls, and audit logging are provider‑dependent.
    • Organizations may lack visibility into:
      • Where data is stored geographically
      • Who can access it (including subcontractors)
    • AI systems often:
      • Retain prompts or training data
      • Learn from user input
      • Extend access beyond original intent
    • Sensitive data may be unintentionally exposed, reused, or disclosed through model outputs.
AI technology often retain prompts or training data, learn from user input, and extend access beyond original intent. Sensitive data may be unintentionally exposed, reused, or disclosed through model outputs. Organizations that collect personal data through AI-integrated workflows carry compounded exposure here.

2. Model Manipulation and Adversarial Attacks

AI systems may be vulnerable to deliberate manipulation or adversarial techniques that alter model behavior, undermine reliability, or expose sensitive information. Bad actors can attack AI systems through:
  • Poisoned training data
  • Prompt manipulation
  • Adversarial inputs
  • Model extraction
These attacks are subtle and difficult to detect with traditional security tooling. Unlike conventional exploits, exploiting AI systems often requires no code.

3. Ethical and Fairness Risk

AI development and usage may introduce or amplify ethical concerns and unfair outcomes, particularly when models reflect AI bias, lack transparency, or are applied without appropriate human supervision. AI can:

  • Discriminate unintentionally
  • Reinforce social inequities
  • Make decisions that conflict with organizational values

Even using or developing AI that’s legally compliant can lead to a violated public trust. One area of particular concern is the use of facial recognition systems, which have been shown to produce significantly higher error rates for women and people with darker skin tones, according to AI research published by MIT Media Lab.

4. Regulatory and Compliance Risk

The use of AI may create compliance challenges as organizational practices intersect with evolving laws, regulations, and industry standards. Efforts to regulate AI are expanding rapidly across the U.S., EU, and beyond. Risks include:

  • Inability to demonstrate transparency or explainability
  • Failure to conduct impact assessments
  • Lack of documented controls or governance

Compliance failures often surface after deployment, when remediation can be expensive.

5. Operational and Resilience Risk

AI systems can introduce operational risk by creating new dependencies, failure modes, or disruptions that impact business continuity and service reliability. AI failures can cascade across systems:
  • Automation may halt operations
  • Bad recommendations may drive incorrect decisions
  • Dependency on external models may create outages
AI incidents often require different response mechanisms than traditional security events.

6. Reputational Risk

The use of AI can expose organizations to significant reputational harm if systems operate in ways that undermine trust, transparency, or stated organizational values. This unintendedly occur with the use of AI in a few ways:
  • AI‑generated outputs that are inaccurate, biased, misleading, or inappropriate—especially in customer‑facing or decision‑impacting contexts—can quickly damage brand credibility.
  • Limited explainability or an inability to clearly articulate how AI decisions are made can erode stakeholder confidence.
  • Inconsistent governance or unmanaged “shadow AI” usage can lead to behaviors that conflict with organizational ethics and public commitments.
In the absence of effective AI governance, reputational incidents may be interpreted not as isolated failures, but as evidence of organizational negligence in managing known and foreseeable risks.

Why Organizations Get Caught Off Guard by AI Risk

Despite these risks, many organizations continue to underestimate AI exposure, as the value of AI adoption is more visible and tangible than the broader, systemic risks it introduces.

Common reasons for the lack of AI governance—and why organizations often prioritize innovation over risk mitigation—can be grouped into several key areas:

1. AI Adoption Is Decentralized

AI enters organizations through:
  • Business units
  • Individual employees
  • Vendors
  • Platform upgrades
Central governance often does not even know where AI is being used.

2. Leadership Sees AI as Innovation, Not Risk

AI initiatives are often framed as:
  • Competitive advantage
  • Efficiency gains
  • Cost savings
While often all of these things are true regarding the use of AI within an organization, the lack of understanding of inherent risks tied to AI use is a core issue. For leaders faced with governing AI use, raising risk concerns can be perceived as obstructive rather than protective.

3. Existing Risk Frameworks Feel “Good Enough”

Many organizations assume that established security, privacy, and compliance frameworks are sufficient for governing AI; however, most were not designed to address the distinct and evolving risks posed by powerful AI systems. This includes the following concepts specific to AI use cases:
  • Model Behavior – AI systems may behave unpredictably, generate incorrect or misleading outputs, or fail in ways that are difficult to anticipate or explain, especially outside of narrowly defined use cases.
  • Data Drift – AI model performance and risk can change over time as input data, operating conditions, or user behavior evolve, often without clear signals to traditional monitoring and control mechanisms.
  • Ethical Risk – AI systems can introduce or amplify bias, inequity, or unintended harm, raising ethical concerns that extend beyond conventional security, privacy, or compliance considerations.
  • Emergent Decision Chains – AI systems may influence or automate multi‑step decisions across workflows, creating complex downstream impacts that are not easily visible, auditable, or attributable to a single control point.

4. Accountability Is Unclear

Because AI adoption is decentralized, ownership of AI‑related risk and accountability for enterprise‑wide compliance, ethical outcomes, and governance are often unclear. When responsibility is diffused across multiple functions, accountability weakens, increasing the likelihood of unmanaged risk. Given that many organizational functions have a vested role in AI use, effective oversight requires a clearly defined, cross‑functional steering committee.
  • IT – May manage the infrastructure and tooling that enable AI use, but typically lacks visibility into how models are applied or the risks they introduce.
  • Security – Often focuses on traditional data and system security controls, without full authority over AI use cases or model behavior.
  • Legal – May be engaged reactively to address regulatory or contractual issues after deployment rather than governing AI use upfront.
  • Product – May drive AI adoption to accelerate innovation or customer value, while risk implications are treated as secondary considerations.
  • Data Science – Understands model behavior and limitations, but is rarely

Part Two: Laying a foundation for managing AI risk as part of AI adoption

It should be evident that organizations must revise their risk management practices to safely support the use of AI. Fortunately, existing risk management frameworks provide a strong foundation for governing AI risk when appropriately adapted to the unique characteristics of AI within the organization.

As with any effective risk governance program, success depends on leadership understanding not only the benefits of AI adoption, but also the risks it introduces.

Risk governance should actively enable responsible AI use by helping the organization identify, rationalize, and manage inherent risks, while providing ongoing oversight as AI capabilities and use cases evolve. For mature organizations, it is critical to help the business harness the power of AI while ensuring its use is aligned to security requirements, regulatory compliance, and client-facing obligations.

Here are some key governance concepts that leaders faced with AI governance should look to adopt:

1. Establish Centralized AI Governance

AI‑driven decisions increasingly shape organizational outcomes, making sustained senior‑leadership involvement in AI use and governance essential. While this mirrors traditional centralized governance models, AI governance must be adapted to address the unique and evolving risks introduced by AI adoption and use.

Key actions include:
  • Assign executive accountability for AI use and risk
  • Establish an AI governance body or steering committee
  • Establish clear objectives, business priorities and required outcomes for use of AI in the company
  • Define AI risk appetite and tolerance
  • Require formal review and approval for all AI use cases.

The committee should ensure that all AI use aligns with business objectives, ethical principles, and regulatory expectations prior to deployment. This includes confirming that each AI initiative has a clear and compelling business case, that required investments are understood, and that the selected AI model is appropriate for the organization’s intended use. The associated risks—both from the use case and the AI model itself—should be clearly identified and assessed, with appropriate controls established as an integral part of AI adoption.

2. Create AI‑Specific Policies and Standards

As with centralized governance, effective policy is a foundational step in setting clear organizational expectations for AI use. Traditional acceptable use policies are insufficient to address the unique risks and scenarios introduced by AI. Organizations should therefore establish a dedicated AI Acceptable Use Policy tailored to their specific operating, risk, and regulatory context, with key elements including the following:
  • Responsible AI Use – Clear expectations for ethical, lawful, and values‑aligned use of AI, including appropriate human control and accountability. Using AI as a supplement to human thinking, and not a replacement.
  • Acceptable AI Usage – Defined permissible and prohibited use cases, with requirements for formal review and approval of all AI systems prior to adoption.
  • Data Handling and Security – Explicit standards governing what data may be used with AI systems, how it must be protected, and where AI tools are permitted to operate.
  • Model Documentation and Transparency – Requirements to document AI models, use cases, limitations, and decision impacts to support explainability, auditability, and oversight.
Policies should define what is allowed, what requires approval, and what is prohibited.

3. Inventory and Classify AI Assets

Similar to traditional IT and security governance models, organizations cannot manage or secure what they do not know exists. Establishing an AI‑specific asset inventory is a fundamental step to properly catalog and govern the AI systems used across the organization. Organizations should:
  • Inventory AI models, tools, and services
  • Identify AI embedded in third‑party platforms
  • Classify AI systems based on impact and risk
This inventory becomes the foundation for risk assessment, monitoring, and compliance reporting.

4. Apply Continuous AI Risk Assessments

As with any risk governance practice, ongoing risk assessment is required and cannot rely on one‑time reviews. This includes:
  • Impact assessments for high‑risk use cases
  • Privacy and ethical impact reviews
  • Periodic reassessments based on model drift or data changes
Risk decisions should be documented and revisited as AI evolves.

5. Implement AI Threat and Vulnerability Management

AI security introduces new threat vectors that are not sufficiently addressed by traditional vulnerability management practices and therefore requires specialized testing approaches, including:
  • Adversarial Testing – Evaluating how AI models respond to intentionally crafted inputs designed to cause incorrect, misleading, or harmful outputs.
  • AI‑Specific Red Teaming – Simulating real‑world abuse scenarios to test how AI systems behave under malicious or unexpected conditions across the full AI lifecycle.
  • Prompt Abuse Testing – Assessing susceptibility to prompt injection, jailbreaks, or manipulation that can bypass safeguards or expose sensitive information.
  • Data Poisoning Detection – Identifying attempts to corrupt training or input data in ways that degrade model integrity, skew outcomes, or introduce hidden behavior.
These activities should be integrated into existing security workflows rather than treated as one‑off exercises.

6. Strengthen Third‑Party and Supply Chain Controls

Organizations place significant emphasis on vendor and model risk as this is an area with unchecked AI risks can occur without an organization knowing. Organizations should:
  • Assess AI capabilities and controls in vendors
  • Define contractual accountability
  • Understand shared responsibility models
  • Monitor vendor model changes

7. Design AI‑Aware Incident Response and Resilience

Traditional incident response plans often fail with AI. Organizations should amend their existing incident response practices to include AI specific scenarios such as following:
  • Define what constitutes an AI incident
  • Build AI‑specific response playbooks
  • Establish rollback, kill switch, and override procedures for AI systems.
  • Incorporate AI into BCP and disaster recovery planning

8. Embed Ethics, Transparency, and Trust Controls

Security alone is insufficient without trust. Organizations should embed controls that promote responsible, transparent, and accountable AI use, including:
  • Transparency Requirements – Clearly disclose where and how AI is used, enabling stakeholders to understand AI’s role in decisions and outcomes.
  • Explainability (Where Feasible) – Ensure AI decisions can be reasonably explained to support accountability, regulatory scrutiny, and user trust.
  • Bias Monitoring – Continuously assess AI outputs for unfair bias or unintended discrimination as models, data, and use cases evolve.
  • Human Oversight Checkpoints – Maintain meaningful human intervention and review points for high‑impact or sensitive AI‑driven decisions.
These controls protect not only compliance — but long‑term organizational legitimacy.

9. Measure, Monitor, and Report AI Risk

“What gets measured gets managed.” Organization should establish KPIs around AI use to ensure its effectiveness and continuously monitor risk.
  • AI‑Specific KRIs and KPIs – Metrics tailored to AI use cases that track risk, performance, drift, misuse, and control effectiveness over time.
  • Executive‑Level Reporting – Regular, concise reporting that provides leadership visibility into AI usage, risk posture, and material exceptions requiring attention.
  • Continuous Monitoring for Misuse or Drift – Ongoing monitoring to detect unauthorized AI use, model behavior changes, data drift, or degradation in outputs that may increase risk.
Visibility transforms AI risk from a hidden liability into a manageable discipline.

Final Thoughts: AI Risk Is a Leadership Responsibility

Use of AI and its associated risks are not a future problem for most companies. It is already shaping decisions, behaviors, and outcomes within the organization. The greatest AI risk is not likely to come from malicious actors or rogue AI algorithms. They come from:
  • Missing governance
  • Lack of or assumed controls
  • Unclear accountability
  • Overconfidence in traditional risk models

AI risk is not a technical edge case. It is an enterprise risk that demands leadership, structure, and foresight.

Organizations that proactively address AI risk enable broader AI adoption while operating more safely and with greater confidence. Although maturing an effective AI governance model requires time and effort, establishing a basic framework with centralized leadership visibility and clear accountability is a practical and meaningful place to start. The links below highlight commonly adopted AI governance frameworks to help get you started.

Key AI Governance Frameworks & Standards

NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) A voluntary and risk‑based framework focused on managing AI risks throughout the lifecycle using four core functions: Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage. Widely adopted in the U.S. and referenced by regulators and industry. 🔗 https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework [nist.gov]
ISO/IEC 42001 – Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) The first international, certifiable standard for AI governance. Provides formal requirements for establishing, operating, monitoring, and improving an AI management system aligned with risk, compliance, and accountability. 🔗 https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html (Overview: https://kpmg.com/ch/en/insights/artificial-intelligence/iso-iec-42001.html) [kpmg.com]
OECD AI Principles The first intergovernmental standard for trustworthy AI, emphasizing human rights, transparency, robustness, and accountability. Influential globally and embedded in many national AI policies and regulations. 🔗 https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles [oecd.ai]
EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) A binding, risk‑based regulatory framework governing AI systems placed on or used in the EU. Establishes obligations for high‑risk and general‑purpose AI, including governance, transparency, and oversight requirements. 🔗 https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/ [artificial…enceact.eu]
UK AI Regulation – Pro‑Innovation Framework A principles‑based, outcomes‑focused AI governance approach relying on existing regulators rather than a single AI law. Centers on safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, and contestability. 🔗 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-regulation-a-pro-innovation-approach [gov.uk]
IEEE Ethical AI & Governance Standards A set of sociotechnical standards and frameworks focused on ethical, human‑centric AI, including accountability, transparency, privacy, and bias mitigation (e.g., Ethically Aligned Design, CertifAIEd™). 🔗 https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html [standards.ieee.org]
UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence A global normative framework adopted by UNESCO member states, emphasizing human dignity, societal well‑being, sustainability, and governance across the AI lifecycle. 🔗 https://www.unesco.org/en/ar

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

AI governance is important because AI systems influence decisions, automate workflows, and process sensitive data across the enterprise. Without proper governance, organizations face risks related to data leakage, compliance violations, bias, reputational damage, and operational disruption.

Some of the most common AI risks include data leakage, model manipulation, adversarial attacks, ethical and fairness concerns, compliance issues, operational failures, and reputational damage. These risks can impact both internal operations and customer trust if not managed properly.

Unlike traditional systems, AI systems are probabilistic, constantly evolving, and heavily influenced by training data and user behavior. AI risks also involve human, ethical, and governance factors, making them both technical and organizational challenges.

Organizations should establish centralized AI governance, create AI specific policies, inventory AI assets, conduct continuous risk assessments, strengthen third party controls, and implement AI aware incident response processes. These steps help ensure responsible and secure AI adoption.

Commonly adopted frameworks include the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework, International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 42001, OECD AI Principles, the European Union AI Act, and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. These frameworks help organizations structure governance, accountability, and compliance practices for AI.

SHARE THIS