All of the options listed may pose copyright risks when teachers use generative AI to create course content, except for students must expressly consent to this use of generative AI. While obtaining student consent is essential for ethical and privacy reasons, it does not directly relate to copyright risks associated with the creation and use of AI-generated content.

Business A is integrating a generative AI model licensed from a third party (Business B) and is primarily concerned with the risk of toxic or obscene outputs being delivered to users. In this scenario,testing and validationof the AI model for such content risks is the most direct and effective governance strategy.

According to theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025, organizations thatdeployAI must engage inperformance monitoring protocolsand ensure systems perform adequately for theirintended purposes, including filtering harmful content:

“Operational governance… development of: →Performance monitoring protocols to ensure systems perform adequately for their intended purposes.” (p. 12)

“Product governance... includes: →System impact assessments to identify and address risk prior to product development or deployment.” (p. 11)

Furthermore, under theEU AI Act, which sets the global standard many organizations aim to align with, there is a clear obligation to test and monitor systems for potential harmful behavior:

“The act imposes regulatory obligations… such as establishing appropriate accountability structures,assessing system impact, providing technical documentation,establishing risk management protocols and monitoring performance...” (p. 7)

Option B directly reflects this best practice ofpre-deployment testing and validationto ensure that the model aligns with Business A’s minimum content safety requirements.

Let’s now evaluate the incorrect options:

A. Fine-tuning on verified user-generated textmay improve model alignment but does not guarantee that the model will generalize correctly, especially if Business A lacks access to model internals (common in third-party licensing scenarios). Fine-tuning also introduces its own risks and may be contractually restricted.

C. A user reporting featureisreactive, not preventive. While helpful for long-term monitoring and mitigation, it does not prevent the initial harm of toxic outputs, which isBusiness A ' s primary concern.

D. Requesting documentation from Business Bis useful for transparency and risk management, but it does not replaceindependent verificationthat the model meets Business A’s content safety standards.

Thus,testing the model ' s behavior for unacceptable outputs before deploymentis the most aligned approach with AI governance best practices and obligations.

The correct answer is C because performing an impact assessment is the most effective proactive measure to identify and mitigate discrimination risks before model training and testing. AI governance frameworks emphasize early-stage risk identification, particularly for high-stakes domains like healthcare, where bias can lead to harmful or inequitable outcomes. Impact assessments, such as algorithmic or data protection impact assessments, evaluate potential harms, affected populations, and fairness risks prior to development. This enables organizations to design appropriate safeguards, adjust data selection, and implement mitigation strategies before biases become embedded in the model. Options like audits and bias bounty programs are reactive or post-development controls, while simply acquiring more data does not guarantee reduced bias without proper analysis. A structured impact assessment aligns with risk-based governance and supports fairness, accountability, and regulatory compliance.

Ensuring fairness when training an AI system largely depends on the data attributes and variability. This involves having a diverse and representative dataset that accurately reflects the population the AI system will serve. Fairness can be compromised if the data is biased or lacks variability, as the model may learn and perpetuate these biases. Diverse data attributes ensure that the model learns from a wide range of examples, reducing the risk of biased predictions. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Ethical AI Principles and Data Management.

Under the EU AI Act, organizations that develop and deploy high-risk AI systems are required to provide several key disclosures to ensure transparency and accountability. These include the human oversight measures employed, how individuals can contest decisions made by the AI system, and informing individuals that an AI system is being used. However, there is no specific requirement to disclose the exact locations where data is stored. The focus of the Act is on the transparency of the AI system ' s operation and its impact on individuals, rather than on the technical details of data storage locations.

Under the EU regulations, particularly the GDPR, banks using AI for decision-making must inform users about the use of AI and provide mechanisms for users to contest decisions. This is part of ensuring transparency and accountability in automated processing. Explicit consent under the privacy directive (A) and disclosing under the Digital Services Act (B) are not specifically required in this context. An adequacy decision is related to data transfers outside the EU (C).

Theprimary considerationin selecting any AI system, especially aproprietary model, is itsfit for business purpose. Whether it serves the intended goals is foundational before evaluating technical or governance features.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report 2025:

“AI governance starts with defining the corporate strategy for AI… and aligning systems with business purpose and operational context.” (p. 11)

B, C, Dare relevant for evaluation, but onlyafterconfirming business applicability.

Developing a social media presence for a non-profit is best served by non-AI solutions. This task primarily involves content creation, community engagement, and strategic planning, which are effectively managed by human expertise and traditional marketing tools. AI is more suitable for tasks requiring automation, large-scale data analysis, and personalized recommendations, such as e-commerce personalization, forecasting cost overruns, or automating customer service responses. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Use Cases and Applications.

The correct answer is C because simply publishing a general AI policy or code of conduct does not satisfy specific transparency obligations required by AI regulations. Transparency requirements focus on providing clear, context-specific disclosures to affected individuals about how AI is being used, particularly when it directly impacts them. For example, notifying users when they are interacting with an AI system or labeling AI-generated content are explicit transparency measures aligned with regulatory expectations. The AI Governance in Practice Report highlights that transparency includes informing users when they interact with AI systems and providing meaningful information about outputs and system behavior . Model cards and labels support system-level and output-level transparency, while real-time notices ensure user awareness. In contrast, a general policy link lacks immediacy, specificity, and user relevance, making it insufficient for mandatory transparency compliance.

The White House Executive Order of November 2023 designates the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the responsible body for creating guidelines to conduct red-teaming tests of AI systems. NIST is tasked with developing and providing standards and frameworks to ensure the security, reliability, and ethical deployment of AI systems, including conducting rigorous red-teaming exercises to identify vulnerabilities and assess risks in AI systems.