|
+AI Agent Resource Limiting |
AI Agent Resource LimitingDescriptionAutomated mechanisms exist to enforce resource limits for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT), including:(1) Energy consumption; (2) Processing capacity; and (3) Financial consumption (e.g., allocated budget). Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Cloud provider resource quotas and budget alerts∙ API rate limiting for AI tool usage ∙ Basic AI tool usage monitoring Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Cloud provider resource quotas and API rate limiting∙ Cost alerting for AI workload spend Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Resource quotas and limits in AI deployment platforms∙ Cloud cost management tools (e.g., AWS Cost Explorer, Azure Cost Management) ∙ API rate limiting and throttling Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Enterprise resource governance for AI workloads∙ Cloud FinOps practices ∙ Automated resource limit enforcement ∙ AI workload monitoring and alerting Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise AI resource governance platform∙ Automated resource limit enforcement with alerting ∙ AI workload orchestration (e.g., Kubernetes resource limits) ∙ FinOps program for AI infrastructure costs SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.Level 1 Performed InformallyArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization. Level 2 Planned TrackedArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well DefinedArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce resource limits for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT), including: (1) Energy consumption; (2) Processing capacity; and (3) Financial consumption (e.g., allocated budget). Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously ImprovingArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are "world class" efforts the leverage predictive analysis (e.g., machine learning and AI) to enable continuously improving capabilities. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. 1. Übersicht
1.1 Referenzen1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
|