How does SAP deal with vulnerability risks created by generative Al? Note: There are 2 correct answers to this question.

Question

Options

• ABy implementing responsible Al use guidelines and strong product security standards.
• BBy identifying human, technical, and exfiltration risks through an Al Security Taskforce.
• CBy focusing on technological advancement only.
• DBy relying on external vendors to manage security threats.

• A
  87% (45)
• C
  4% (2)
• D
  10% (5)

Explanation

SAP addresses generative AI vulnerability risks on two fronts: Option A reflects SAP's commitment to responsible AI governance - they've established ethical use guidelines paired with rigorous product security standards to proactively reduce risk. Option B reflects their operational security structure - SAP created a dedicated AI Security Taskforce that categorizes threats into human (insider risk), technical (model/system weaknesses), and exfiltration (data leakage) risks, enabling targeted mitigation.

Option C is wrong because SAP explicitly balances technological advancement with security and ethics - a technology-only focus contradicts their responsible AI framework. Option D is wrong because SAP takes internal ownership of AI security rather than delegating it to external vendors; the AI Security Taskforce is an in-house initiative.

Memory tip: Think "Inside + Outside" - SAP handles AI risk both internally through a dedicated Taskforce (B) and culturally through guidelines and standards (A). Any answer suggesting outsourcing or ignoring ethics is automatically wrong.

No community discussion yet for this question.