🎙️ BETWEENPLAYS FEATURED — NOT FINANCIAL, LEGAL, OR INVESTMENT ADVICE
Why Identity Access Management ( IAM ) Will Transition to be the Control Plane for Artificial Intelligence ( AI )
Artificial intelligence now operates inside enterprises with the speed, scale, and reach of a digital workforce—yet without any of the human friction traditionally associated with identity. AI systems consume internal data, generate content, call APIs, automate workflows, and interact with production environments continuously. They perform all of this without logging in, resetting passwords, or completing multi-factor authentication (MFA) challenges.
This operational difference has produced a common misconception: if AI is not a human user, it does not require identity.
That assumption is increasingly dangerous.
Every AI model, agent, or autonomous workflow introduced into an environment becomes a new non-human identity—one capable of executing actions at machine speed. If misconfigured or compromised, AI can move laterally through an enterprise far faster than any human threat actor.
“No actor, system, or service operating within a Zero Trust architecture is implicitly trusted.”
— NIST SP 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture
AI is no exception. It cannot be granted implicit trust simply because it runs inside the network.
To understand why IAM is transitioning to be the control plane for AI, it is necessary to first understand what IAM fundamentally is, and what it was designed to govern.
IAM is the discipline that governs who or what is allowed to actinside an enterprise system. Traditionally, IAM was developedto authenticate humans—confirming identity through passwords, MFA, badges, or certificates—and then authorizing their access to applications, data, and infrastructure.
However, IAM has evolved significantly. Modern IAM no longer concerns itself solely with users.
It manages:
- • Humans (employees, contractors, customers)
- • Devices (mobile, IoT, endpoints)
- • Workloads (services, functions, containers)
- • APIs
- • Machine identities
- • Cloud services
In other words, IAM will govern all actors—human and non-human—operating in an environment.
The Cloud Security Alliance articulates this expanded remit clearly:
“Modern environments may contain thousands of non-human identities—often outnumbering human users.”
— Cloud Security Alliance, Non-Human Identity Management (2023)
This expansion of scope is critical. AI is not a conventional application. It is a dynamic, autonomous workload that:
- • Executes actions
- • Reads sensitive information
- • Writes content
- • Initiates processes
- • Makes decisions
- • Interacts with production systems
AI behaves not like software, but like a highly capable participant within the environment. For this reason, IAM must treat AI neither as code nor as a traditional user, but as a non-human identity with defined permissions, boundaries, and accountability.
This reframing is what allows IAM to serve as the operational governor for artificial intelligence.
“Workload identity enables applications to authenticate securely without long-lived credentials.”
— Google Cloud IAM Documentation (2023)
AI is a workload, and we require workloads to have identity.
AI as a Non-Human Identity
Traditional IAM focused on answering a singular question: Who are you?
AI forces a different question: What is this system, and what is it allowed to do?
AI systems are therefore not treated as users. They are classified as non-human identities/entities that operate autonomously inside infrastructure (enterprise, corporate, government, cloud, etc.) These identities define what systems AI can access, what actions it can take, and how its activity is monitored.
“Managed identities eliminate the need for developers to manage credentials.”
— Microsoft Azure Managed Identities Documentation (2023)
In other words, identity should live in infrastructure, not in code.
The IAM AI Risks
AI introduces several categories of risk that require explicit identity governance. Models can be manipulated through prompt injection, data poisoning, malicious plugins, or supply chain attacks. An AI granted overly broad access can be easily hijacked through its inputs, turning it into an unintended insider threat.
AI also dramatically amplifies attacker capabilities. Machine-speed operations allow compromised AI identities to scan APIs, extract data, or exploit misconfigurations far faster than human attackers. As Bruce Schneier warns:
“Automation magnifies the power of attackers far more than it magnifies the power of defenders.”
— Bruce Schneier, “Click Here to Kill Everybody” (2018)
Without IAM, AI’s speed becomes the attacker’s advantage.
Another challenge is attribution. Without identity binding, AI systems become unclear on which systems they are “talking to.”When logs show unusual activity, security teams cannot determine which AI instance initiated it, under what authority, or from which environment. IAM restores observability.
Identity Lives in the Environment, Not the Model
IAM enforces a critical principle: the model itself does not hold identity. Identity is bound to the environment where the model runs.
“Security must be rooted in the identity of the workload, not embedded secrets.”
— HashiCorp Vault, Machine Identity & Secrets Management (2023)
This ensures that:
- • Stolen models cannot authenticate
- • Exported models have zero privilege
- • Identity cannot be copied
- • Access can be revoked centrally
A model has no inherent authority. Only the runtime does.
Authentication Without Passwords
AI does not log in with credentials. Identity is asserted through runtime signals such as:
- • Mutual TLS (mTLS)
- • Short-lived tokens
- • Workload identity federation
- • Cloud metadata services
- • Runtime-bound certificates
“Identity validation must occur at the workload boundary to prevent unauthorized system-level actions.”
— OWASP AI Security & Privacy Guide (2023)
Identity is dynamic. It is continuously reasserted—not assumed.
Least Privilege as an Operational Requirement
AI systems function best with clearly defined, minimally scoped access. IAM restricts AI interactions to only those resources required for task execution. Unlike human users, AI has no need for convenience exceptions. This makes least privilege fully achievable.
Since AI does not rely on login events, identity must be checked continuously. IAM validates runtime integrity, token freshness, certificate validity, and environmental metadata. If any trust signal degrades, privileges vanish instantly.
One Model, Many Identities
The same AI model across development, staging, and production must have different identities. This prevents cross-environmentdata exposure or privilege inheritance.
IAM also governs human operations around AI:
- • Who may deploy
- • Who may modify configurations
- • Who may trigger training
- • Who may attach new tools
- • Who may inspect logs
This separation of duties is essential for full identity management, access, and controls.
Zero Trust for AI
AI will have to operate under Zero Trust principles. Every action, request, and behavior must be validated continuously.
“Access decisions are made using dynamic policy… continuously evaluated.”
— NIST SP 800-207 (2022)
Applied to AI, Zero Trust requires:
- • Verification of each AI action
- • Context-aware authorization
- • Environmental trust validation
- • Fine-grained activity restrictions
- • Full auditability
“AI is one of the most profound technologies we’re ever going to work on, and safety must be built in from the beginning.”
— Sundar Pichai, Financial Times Interview (2023)
Zero Trust is the mechanism by which safety is built in.
Future State: IAM as the Foundation of AI Governance
IAM is evolving beyond access control into the backbone of AI governance. Several trends define the future:
- 1.Policy-Aware AI Systems AI agents will request access dynamically, and IAM will approve or deny based on real-time policy.
- 2. AI-to-AI Trust Contracts IAM will govern negotiations and data exchange between independent AI systems.
- 3. Identity-Tied Explainability Every AI action will be traceable back to its identity claim, enabling true accountability.
- 4. Machine-Speed Access Control IAM will adjust privileges instantaneously, matching AI’s operational tempo.
- 5. Unified Human + AI Governance Models IAM will create integrated policy frameworks that govern both human workflows and autonomous systems.
“As systems become more capable, they must also become more controllable.”
— Demis Hassabis, MIT Technology Review Interview (2022)
IAM is the structure that enables that controllability.
IAM treats AI as infrastructure. Identity belongs to the environment—not the model—and determines what AI is permitted to do within enterprise systems. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in operations, IAM becomes the central mechanism for managing risk, ensuring accountability, and enforcing safe autonomy.
The future of AI governance is not defined by model architecture. It is defined by identity.
AI systems cannot distinguish one another by intelligence or intent. Enterprises rely only on identity—cryptographic tokens, certificates, environment metadata, and policy checks.
Identity defines authority, not intelligence. We’re still in the drivers seat for now.
References (APA Style)
(All sources are public and non-paywalled unless otherwise noted)
Cloud Security Alliance. (2023). Non-Human Identity Management.
Google Cloud. (2023). Workload Identity Federation Overview.
Hassabis, D. (2022). Interview with MIT Technology Review.
HashiCorp. (2023). Machine Identity and Secret Lifecycle Management.
Microsoft. (2023). Managed Identities for Azure Resources.
NIST. (2022). Zero Trust Architecture (NIST SP 800-207).
OWASP. (2023). AI Security & Privacy Guide.
Pichai, S. (2023). Interview on global AI governance. Financial Times.
Schneier, B. (2018). Click Here to Kill Everybody. W.W. Norton & Company.
ADVERTISEMENT
BETWEENPLAYS – Buy ad space directly in a digital-first advertising ecosystem designed for real-time visibility and measurable reach.