The growing adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in financial supervision is a double edged sword – it’s a powerful tool that begins to unlock potential for greater efficiency and deeper insights, but it also has serious regulatory implications that must be addressed in timely and thoughtful ways.
With banks and insurance companies using Gen AI for aspects such as customer service, fraud detection, risk management and automated progress reporting, regulators worldwide – from the RBI to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) – are pondering how to ensure responsible and ethical implementation.
Gen AI’s capability to digest enormous amounts of unstructured data and create new content has transformative implications for financial monitoring. Managers can use it for document process and knowledge management, and navigating through long documents, and be able to streamline compliance work-streams and go faster to an abnormal status identification.
For example, Gen AI could automatically analyze extremely complicated financial reports to pull out only the details necessary and help generate more accurate compliance documents.
But that leap comes with a universe of complications that most conventional AI governance frameworks are not equipped to handle. A key issue is a “black box”-type image that some Gen AI models have because it’s hard to know how judgments are formed. This impenetrability is a substantial barrier for policymakers who need transparency and explainability to attain fairness, accountability and auditable AI-driven outcomes.
Security and privacy of data are priorities in this highly confidential financial area. Gen AI models that are typically trained on massive data sets pose the risk of data leakages, the decontextualization of anonymized information and the secure handling of confidential customer data. Regulators want to see strong encryption practices and ongoing oversight to guard against misuse or violations.
Bias in training data can also present a severe ethical problem. If Gen AI models are trained on biased, incomplete, or unrepresentative data, they can reproduce and exacerbate current cultural and societal biases, generating biased outcomes in things like credit evaluation or loan decisions. Supervisory authorities pay special attention to guaranteeing trustworthiness of AI and ensuring the absence of discriminatory or biased algorithms.
Responsible AI as strategy It is also not just a foreign phenomenon as the SEBI in India is also stressing accountability and said that its regulated entities are responsible for outcomes of their AI tools, irrespective of which vendor or open-source code runs them.
While financial organizations pilot more advanced Gen AI functionality, issues such as user adoption and the potential for AI-based intelligence to be inaccurate are likely to be exacerbated. It will be the work of regulators in the Gen AI era to find this balance between promoting innovation and protecting financial stability, consumer protection and market integrity.
