A widening gap between chief executives and security leaders over the risks and rewards of artificial intelligence is emerging as one of the most consequential governance challenges facing large companies. A recent executive survey highlights not simple disagreement, but a structural tension in how organisations are adopting AI faster than they are redefining accountability for the risks it introduces – a dynamic that, as we observe at YourNewsClub, increasingly defines board-level discussions around technology strategy.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly positioned by CEOs as a productivity multiplier and a source of competitive advantage. At the same time, many CISOs view the same tools as amplifiers of exposure, particularly around data leakage, identity compromise, and automated social-engineering attacks. From our perspective, this divergence is not ideological. It reflects the fact that AI decisions are often made in product, operations, or innovation units, while the downside risk remains concentrated in security, legal, and compliance functions. YourNewsClub sees this imbalance as a signal that AI governance is lagging behind AI deployment.
AI’s impact now extends well beyond traditional cyber domains. It reshapes reputational risk, regulatory exposure, and crisis management, pulling boards of directors directly into decisions that were once delegated to IT leadership. The speed of AI adoption has effectively collapsed the distance between experimentation and enterprise-level risk, forcing organisations to confront consequences in real time rather than through staged rollouts.
Survey results show that senior executives are far less aligned internally than public messaging suggests. While many CEOs express confidence that AI will strengthen their organisations, a significantly higher share of security leaders remain unconvinced that its net effect on cyber resilience will be positive. This confidence gap is driven less by resistance to innovation than by uncertainty over control, a pattern YourNewsClub repeatedly encounters when analysing post-incident disclosures and insurance claims tied to emerging technologies. Jessica Larn, who focuses on macro-level technology policy and infrastructure dynamics, frames this tension as a governance lag. In her view, AI adoption has outpaced the institutional frameworks designed to manage systemic risk. When systems that shape decision-making and customer interaction evolve faster than oversight structures, responsibility becomes blurred – precisely the condition regulators and insurers now scrutinise most closely.
Geographic differences reinforce the picture. Executives in the United States report far greater confidence in their preparedness for AI-driven threats than their counterparts in the United Kingdom. This disparity likely reflects differences in regulatory culture rather than actual resilience. Owen Radner, whose work examines digital infrastructure as energy-information transport systems, argues that AI reclassifies cyber incidents from isolated technical failures into systemic events. Once attacks scale across organisations and supply chains, recovery becomes an infrastructure problem rather than a software issue.
Cybersecurity has therefore moved decisively to the top of executive investment priorities, driven by a sharp rise in ransomware activity and the growing recognition that AI accelerates both attack and defence. Yet higher budgets alone rarely resolve structural weaknesses. Without clear rules governing data exposure, access control, and third-party dependencies, spending often increases complexity without reducing risk.
At Your News Club, we believe the widening CEO–CISO divide will persist unless AI is treated as shared infrastructure rather than discretionary software. Boards that demand explicit governance frameworks – defining permitted use cases, data boundaries, accountability, and failure scenarios – are more likely to capture AI’s upside while containing its risks. Those that rely on confidence without control may find that today’s productivity gains become tomorrow’s governance failures.