Skip to main content

The Board Will Never Catch Up with AI, and It Doesn't Have to

The Board Will Never Catch Up with AI — And It Doesn't Have To

To Govern AI, Understand the Humans Who Use It

AI is advancing faster than most boards can possibly follow.

By the time directors understand today's AI, tomorrow's technology has arrived.

So how can a board govern something it struggles to keep up with?

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question.

Boards don't need to understand AI better than the technologists. They need to understand humans better than the technology.

Because ultimately, one of the biggest risks of AI is not simply what AI can do.

It is what humans will choose to do with it.

The Real AI Risk May Be Human

Imagine management presents an AI-generated forecast showing that a major investment will deliver excellent returns.

The board could ask: "How accurate is the AI model?"

Important question.

But perhaps the more important questions are:

Who chose the assumptions?

Is management using AI to challenge its thinking, or to justify a decision it has already made?

That is no longer an AI question. It is a governance question.

Consider another example.

AI allows a company to reduce its workforce substantially. Management reports millions of dollars in savings.

Should the board celebrate? Not necessarily.

The board should ask:

What are we doing with the money and human capacity saved?

If those resources are not redirected towards innovation, new markets or solving customer problems, cutting costs alone may not create sustainable value.

Again, the technology is not the central issue.

Human decisions are.

5 Human Questions Boards Should Ask About AI

Instead of trying to become AI engineers, directors can ask five surprisingly simple questions:

1. Who benefits?
What incentives are driving this AI decision?

2. Who is accountable?
When AI gets something wrong, which human ultimately owns the decision?

3. How could this be abused?
Could management, employees, suppliers, customers or criminals misuse the technology?

4. Are humans surrendering judgment?
Are people challenging AI recommendations—or gradually accepting them because "

5. What will we refuse to do?

AI will increasingly allow companies to do things that were previously impossible.

But just because we can doesn't mean we should.

That may become one of the most important questions boards ask.

The Board's Job Is Not to Beat AI

There will always be someone who understands the technology better than the directors.

Hire them. Listen to them. Challenge them.

But the board has a different responsibility.

The board must consider judgment, accountability, ethics, incentives, culture, trust and long-term consequences.

These are fundamentally human questions.

And perhaps that is where directors should spend more of their time.

The Paradox of AI Governance

The more powerful AI becomes, the more important human governance may become.

Boards should certainly develop sufficient AI literacy to understand its opportunities and risks.

But they should not confuse technical knowledge with governance.

AI can analyse. AI can predict. AI can recommend.

Humans still decide how it will be used.

So perhaps the greatest risk of AI is not what AI will do to mankind.

It is what mankind will choose to do with AI.

And that is why governing AI is ultimately not just a technology problem.

It is a human governance problem.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What an Executive Coach and Business Coach Does

Post a Comment
Read more

The Secret Under the Mattress: Why would a 79-year Man Bet So Big on 4D?

It was 2007 when we discovered his secret. While moving my father’s mattress, we found them: heaps and heaps of Singapore Pools 4D tickets. They were stacked in layers, a paper trail of lost hopes. What shocked us most wasn’t just the volume, but the stakes. He wasn’t betting a few dollars for fun. He was punting hundreds of dollars per draw—nearly ten times a month. At the time, my siblings and I were furious. Our father was a 79-year-old retiree. We wondered, with a mix of anger and confusion, why a man at his stage of life would need to win such "big money." What was he going to do with the money? We saw it as a reckless habit, a sign of poor judgment in his final years.  Some of us would say, "If I were to give him money to buy 4D, why don't I use the money and buy 4D myself?  At least I have better discipline".  It has taken me two decades, and the experience of raising my own three grown-up children, to finally see the truth that was hidden under that matt...
Post a Comment
Read more

Head Bleeding when the Chair Falls

The Weight of Silence: What Were We Really Arguing About? My earliest memories are punctuated by the sound of shouting. In 1970, when I was barely 6 years old, I stood as a small witness to the fierce quarrels between my father and my late eldest brother Kah Yang (he passed away in 1971 at the age of 17). As I grew up, these contradictions became the soundtrack of our lives, usually centered around our family's shoe shop and clothing stalls in Chinatown. In the court of family opinion, the verdict was almost always the same: my father was "wrong." He was judged as a man who didn't fulfill his role, who wasn't "burdening" enough for the family’s success. But as I look back from the vantage point of 2026, I have to ask: Was that actually true? Let me finally put to rest what my father did right: the truths that were buried under decades of criticism: Unseen Labor: He worked grueling, long hours. I remember him hauling boxes of goods and equipment to set u...
Post a Comment
Read more