-->

Save $100 off your pass for KMWorld 2026!
Register NOW and join us November 16-19

Rethinking Governance

As we march toward artificial general intelligence, artificial super-intelligence, or the latest SkyNet panic du jour, the call for AI governance grows increasingly intense. Discussions cover the entire spectrum, from full moratoriums to unrestricted “caveat emptor.” Such ongoing debate is certainly warranted and encouraged.

But it’s not just about AI “going rogue,” although that always remains a major concern. We seem to be losing sight of what used to be a core element of
knowledge governance: the human side, both tacit and explicit. After all, much of what AI has been learning, at least for now, comes from us humans. Thus, while we’re furiously trying to catch up with how to govern AI, we also need to focus on how best to curate and govern our vast and rapidly growing storehouses of human knowledge.

The task is becoming increasingly difficult. Let’s take a closer look at three particularly important aspects of both the human and machine sides: hallucinations and fabrications (making stuff up); biases, errors and inaccuracies; and data leakage and privacy.

Humans Hallucinate Too ... More Than You Might Expect

Although we humans rarely refer to our musings as hallucinations, the motivations, approaches, and outcomes are pretty much the same as in the AI realm. Whether individually or collectively, there’s a strong desire to “play it safe,” including telling bosses what they want to hear, rather than being the bearer of bad news. This includes regurgitating “conventional wisdom,” even when it clearly doesn’t apply.

On the machine side, as large language models (LLMs) are ingesting hundreds of terabytes of public domain knowledge, truth can and often does become muddled, convoluted, and confusing. For example, in the seemingly endless stream of video clips of U.S. congressional hearings, we see witnesses being badgered by their inquisitors—with their 5 allotted minutes— to “Answer the question ... Yes, or no!” One lone snippet gets entered into the public record, often with little or no context; blasted across social media; and permanently stored in AI’ s data centers. So much for seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

How We Get It Wrong— Let’s Count the Ways

We’ve known about human biases and their impact on decision making for a long time. As our world becomes more complex, fast-changing, and overwhelming, legacy syndromes, such as the Dunning-Kruger effect, have recently crept back into the lexicon. Not surprisingly, LLMs have been caught exhibiting these same biases. In the interest of achieving greater efficiency, AI, with its energy-guzzling GPUs, tends to cut the investigative process short and render a summary snippet rather than seeking the improved accuracy and confidence that comes with performing more exhaustive, token-expending research.

And just like their slick human counterparts, LLMs seek to gain increased assurance through skillful use of language. Even more important is the tendency for errors to cascade and grow. Large numbers of interconnected agents communicate with each other through Model Context Protocol and, more recently, their very own, possibly indecipherable, language.

The human user is often the weak link in cybersecurity. The same applies to the leakage of confidential, proprietary, and personal data into open LLMs by prompts, uploads, and other means, which are, in turn, used to fine-tune the models. Business models that depend on the col- lection and selling of vast amounts of user data are increasingly at odds with trust, privacy, and safety. This is something to keep in mind.

KMWorld Covers
Free
for qualified subscribers
Subscribe Now Current Issue Past Issues