企业AI治理转向:从建系统到定规则,六条准则破局GenAI鸿沟

移动通信网 程然

企业生成式AI投入已达数百亿美元量级,但真正转化为损益表成果的案例却寥寥无几。MIT媒体实验室NANDA项目2025年报告显示,在其数据集覆盖的组织中,绝大多数尚未展现出可衡量的利润影响,仅有约5%的集成试点项目产生了实质价值。研究人员将这一现象命名为“GenAI鸿沟”。一位在企业AI转型一线工作多年的负责人近日提出六条治理准则,试图回答一个问题:当AI系统承担执行,人的价值应如何重新定义。

从执行者到治理者:角色正在迁移

这位作者的职业轨迹颇具代表性:从数据库查询、统计建模起家,曾在百思买、塔吉特等零售巨头搭建并扩展数据分析团队,如今在财富100强家居零售商Lowe's领导企业级AI转型。他观察到,在零售等直面客户的行业,虚拟助手已能解决“如何修理漏水水龙头”这类日常问题,同时引导客户找到相关产品与服务。

技术角色的内涵随之改变。工作不再局限于构建AI系统,而是定义系统的运行方式:哪些决策可以自主作出、何时必须升级给人工、哪些行动绝对禁止。他将这一变化称为“治理者转移”——从亲自执行任务,转向设定系统运行的意图、原则与边界。业务运营者或许不写代码,但他们会决定一个AI代理可以批准哪些定价特例、哪些必须上报人工。这本身就是治理。

【关键数据】

- 企业生成式AI累计投资: 约300亿-400亿美元

- 产生实质价值的集成试点占比: 仅约5%

- 核心治理准则: 6条

- 治理代码化架构层级: 宪法、信条、手册三层

六条准则:把治理写成代码

第一条是识别“人类中间件”状态。软件中的中间件是两个系统之间传递信息的代码,而许多职场人正在成为其人类版本——把数据从一个工具导出、重新整理格式、再转给另一个团队。作者称之为“管理员陷阱”,这个陷阱由架构设定,而非个人的能力缺陷。传递信息正是AI代理擅长的事,但判断哪些数字值得关注、哪些风险是真实的、哪些妥协值得做,仍然是人的职责。

第二条是用原则取代规则。传统规则以人的速度运转,例如超过一定金额的退款需高层签字、代码需两人评审。但当系统每小时作出数千个决策、遭遇任何手册都无法预见的情形——比如一条同时触及三项政策的投诉——规则便会失效。规则要求精确执行特定动作,原则则要求在不越线的前提下达成结果。治理AI意味着按优先级排序这些原则,让系统像一支训练有素的团队那样,在管理者不在场时自行化解冲突。

第三条锚定价值排序:绝不伤害客户,即使公司丢掉一单生意也要说真话,在此前提下保护经营效益并快速行动。其底层是决策权问题——谁或什么系统有权作出何种决定。把答案写成一份“原则库”,如今已是核心领导工作。

第四条是把文化写进代码。许多公司把价值观做成挂在墙上的海报,但AI代理读不懂海报。治理应当以机器可读的指令形式落地,分三层实现:最顶层是“宪法”,即代理绝不可打破的规则,例如绝不陈述无法佐证的事实;第二层是“信条”,定义企业如何竞争以及可接受的取舍,例如为长期客户关系放弃短期销售;底层是“手册”,存放具体任务的战术操作。

GenAI鸿沟的破解之道:人才而非技术

回到那条5%与95%的分界线,一个关键事实是:落后企业并不缺技术——它们与赢家使用的是同样的基础模型。真正稀缺的,是能够指挥系统运行、并为系统产出结果承担责任的治理型人才。对于工程师、产品经理、分析师和业务运营者而言,为机器起草的工作签字背书,正在成为一种新的职业常态。这一转变对正在推进AI落地的中国企业同样具有参考价值:模型能力趋同之后,竞争的焦点将从“谁的系统更强”转向“谁的治理更清晰”。


出处:6 Guidelines for Governing AI

英文原文
For the first 10 years of my career, I worked in product management and data analytics by myself. I wrote database queries that pulled numbers out of corporate systems, built statistical models to predict what customers would buy, and shipped data pipelines that moved information between business systems. I built and scaled analytics teams at Best Buy and Target , studying how customers shop and what stores should stock. Today I lead enterprise AI transformation at Lowe’s , the Fortune 100 home improvement retailer. The goal is not to sell artificial intelligence ; it is to use it to deliver useful expertise at the moment a customer needs it. In retail and other customer-facing industries, virtual assistants can help people address everyday questions—such as how to repair a leaky faucet—while guiding them toward relevant products, services, or next steps. As these capabilities become more common, technology roles are changing. The work is no longer limited to building AI systems ; it also includes defining how they operate: which decisions they can make autonomously, when they must escalate to a person, and which actions must remain off-limits. That shift—from building AI systems to governing them —is coming for anyone who is accountable for what such systems produce. Not the casual user typing into a chatbot but the engineers, product managers, analysts, and business operators who sign off on work a machine drafted. It is the subject of the book I recently coauthored, The Enterprise Brain . I call the change the “governor shift,” from executing tasks yourself to setting the intent, principles, and boundaries within systems that execute them for you. Business operators might not write code; they will decide which pricing exceptions an agent may approve and which it must escalate. That is governing. A 2025 report from MIT Media Lab’s Project NANDA found that, despite an estimated US $30 billion to $40 billion in enterprise generative-AI investment, the vast majority of organizations in its dataset had not yet demonstrated measurable profit-and-loss impact. The report estimated that only about 5 percent of integrated pilots were generating substantial value, underscoring how difficult it remains to move from experimentation to scaled business outcomes. Researchers named the pattern the GenAI Divide , the term I adopted for the book. The companies rarely lack technology; they use the same models as the 5 percent that are winners. But they lack people who can direct the systems and stand behind the results. Guidelines to follow Here are six guidelines. Recognize when you have become “human middleware.” In software, “middleware” is the code that sits between two systems and passes information back and forth. Many of us have become its human version. Take an honest look at your week. How much time is spent pulling data out of one tool, reformatting it, and routing it to another team? I call this the “administrator trap,” which is set by the architecture, not by the people caught in it. Relaying is what AI agents now do well. But they cannot judge which numbers deserve attention, which risks are real, or which compromises are worth making. Trade rules for principles. For many years, workers used rules to manage their work. Refunds for a product over a certain amount needed a signature from upper management, for example. Writing code needed two reviewers. Rules work at human speed. But rules break when a system makes thousands of decisions per hour and meets situations no rulebook anticipated, such as a complaint covered by three different policies. A rule says to do exactly this specific thing; a principle says to achieve the outcome without crossing certain lines. Governing AI means writing those principles in priority order so the system settles its own conflicts the way a well-led team does when the manager is not available. Never harm the customer. Tell the truth even if the company loses a sale. Protect the economics, and then move quickly. Underneath sits a question of decision rights: the formal authority over who or what may make a given call. Writing down the answers in what I call a “library of principles” is now core leadership work, whether you’re a technologist or a business owner. Write your culture into your code. Many companies have turned their values into posters that hang on office walls. But an AI agent cannot read the posters. Instead, write your governance as code. Include your values and policies as machine-readable instructions that the AI agent will follow automatically. Do so in three layers. The top is the constitution, which states the rules an agent may never break, and never state a fact it cannot support. The second layer is the doctrine: how the business competes and the acceptable trade-offs to get there, such as protecting a long-term relationship over a short-term sale. At the bottom sits the playbook, which has the tactics used for one task. Install a trust thermostat, not a tru

微信扫描分享本文到朋友圈
扫码关注5G通信官方公众号,免费领取以下5G精品资料
  • 1、回复“YD5GAI”免费领取《中国移动:5G网络AI应用典型场景技术解决方案白皮书》
  • 2、回复“5G6G”免费领取《5G_6G毫米波测试技术白皮书-2022_03-21》
  • 3、回复“YD6G”免费领取《中国移动:6G至简无线接入网白皮书》
  • 4、回复“LTBPS”免费领取《《中国联通5G终端白皮书》》
  • 5、回复“ZGDX”免费领取《中国电信5GNTN技术白皮书》
  • 6、回复“TXSB”免费领取《通信设备安装工程施工工艺图解》
  • 7、回复“YDSL”免费领取《中国移动算力并网白皮书》
  • 8、回复“5GX3”免费领取《R1623501-g605G的系统架构1》
  • 本周热点本月热点

     

      最热通信招聘

      最新招聘信息

    最新技术文章

    最新论坛贴子