SISA Updated CSPAI Exam Questions and Answers by noel

Bias assessment in GenAI employs fairness metrics such as demographic parity (equal outcomes across groups) or equalized odds (balanced error rates), quantifying disparities in outputs. These metrics guide debiasing techniques, ensuring ethical AI under risk models. In applications like hiring tools, they prevent discriminatory generations, aligning with regulatory requirements. Exact extract: "Fairness metrics like demographic parity are used in GenAI risk models to evaluate and mitigate bias." (Reference: Cyber Security for AI by SISA Study Guide, Section on Bias Assessment Metrics, Page 245-248).

Risk assessment for GenAI begins with comprehensive data flow mapping, tracing inputs, processing, and outputs to pinpoint privacy vulnerabilities like unintended data leakage. This step reveals how personal information is handled, enabling classification of risks under frameworks like GDPR or ISO 27701. It facilitates the identification of controls such as anonymization or consent mechanisms. In GenAI, where models infer from vast data, this prevents re-identification attacks. Exact extract: "A primary step in GenAI data privacy risk assessment is conducting data flow mapping to identify and mitigate privacy risks." (Reference: Cyber Security for AI by SISA Study Guide, Section on Privacy Risk Models, Page 235-238).

The US Executive Order on AI emphasizes proactive risk management and robust security to ensure safe AI deployment. When a vulnerability is detected, rapid response to remediate it, coupled with a thorough review of security practices, aligns with these mandates by minimizing harm and preventing recurrence. This approach involves patching the issue, assessing root causes, and updating protocols to strengthen defenses, ensuring compliance with standards like ISO 42001, which prioritizes risk mitigation in AI systems. Public disclosure, while important, is secondary to remediation to avoid premature exposure, and halting projects is overly disruptive unless risks are critical. Ignoring vulnerabilities contradicts responsible AI principles, risking regulatory penalties and trust erosion. This strategy fosters accountability and aligns with governance frameworks for secure AI operations. Exact extract: "Addressing vulnerabilities promptly through remediation and reviewing security practices is prioritized to meet the US Executive Order’s expectations for safe and secure AI systems." (Reference: Cyber Security for AI by SISA Study Guide, Section on AI Governance and US EO Compliance, Page 165-168).

Responsible AI standards, including ISO 42001 for AI management systems, aim to promote ethical development, ensuring safety, fairness, and harm prevention in LLM deployments. This encompasses bias mitigation, transparency, and accountability, aligning with societal values. Regulations like the EU AI Act reinforce this by categorizing risks and mandating safeguards. The goal transcends performance to foster trust and sustainability, addressing issues like discrimination or misuse. Exact extract: "The primary goal is to ensure AI systems operate safely, ethically, and without causing harm, as outlined in standards like ISO 42001." (Reference: Cyber Security for AI by SISA Study Guide, Section on Responsible AI and ISO Standards, Page 150-153).