---
id: "action-demand-ai-transparency"
type: "action-item"
source_timestamps: ["§ 2. Conventional Tools Don't Translate"]
tags: ["vendor-management", "cloud-security"]
related: ["claim-conventional-tools-fail", "question-auditing-black-box-ai"]
action: "Demand transparency, portability, and independent validation capabilities from cloud AI service providers."
outcome: "Avoidance of vendor lock-in and inherited, unverifiable security risks."
source_title: "Research: Conventional Cybersecurity Won't Protect Your AI"
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2026/01/ts-research-conventional-cybersecurity-wont-protect-your-ai"
sources: ["tail2"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail2"
originDay: 2
articleStem: "hbr-tail-128-cybersecurity-wont-protect-ai"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/01/ts-research-conventional-cybersecurity-wont-protect-your-ai"
sourceTitle: "Research: Conventional Cybersecurity Won’t Protect Your AI"
---
# Demand Transparency in AI Services

**Action:** Demand transparency, portability, and independent-validation capabilities from cloud AI service providers.
**Expected outcome:** Avoidance of vendor lock-in and inherited, unverifiable security risks.

Reject blind faith in opaque, 'black box' AI services. Prioritize **open frameworks** that allow independent validation, and implement **hybrid strategies** combining application-level defenses with infrastructure-level monitoring. This is Imperative 2 of the [[framework-four-imperatives-ai-security]], responding to [[claim-conventional-tools-fail]] — while the exact mechanisms to force auditability remain an [[question-auditing-black-box-ai|open question]].


## Related across articles
- [[concept-explainable-ai-in-negotiation]]
- [[action-deploy-explainable-models]]
- [[action-establish-ai-governance]]