AWS Certified AI Practitioner AIF-C01 Passing Score

The company wants to fine-tune an ML model on Amazon Bedrock using sensitive data stored in private databases within a VPC, ensuring the data remains within its private network. AWS PrivateLink provides a secure, private connection between a VPC and AWS services like Amazon Bedrock, allowing data to stay within the company’s network without traversing the public internet. This meets the requirement for maintaining data privacy during fine-tuning.

Exact Extract from AWS AI Documents:

From the AWS Bedrock User Guide:

"AWS PrivateLink enables you to securely connect your VPC to Amazon Bedrock without exposing data to the public internet. This is particularly useful for fine-tuning models with sensitive data, as it ensures that data remains within your private network."

(Source: AWS Bedrock User Guide, Security and Networking)

Detailed Explanation:

Option A: Restrict access to Amazon Bedrock by using an AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) service role.While IAM service roles control access to Amazon Bedrock, they do not address the requirement of keeping data within the private network during data transfer. This option is insufficient.

Option B: Restrict access to Amazon Bedrock by using an AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) resource policy.IAM resource policies define permissions for Bedrock resources but do not ensure that data stays within the private network. This option is incorrect.

Option C: Use AWS PrivateLink to connect the VPC and Amazon Bedrock.This is the correct answer. AWS PrivateLink creates a secure, private connection between the VPC and Amazon Bedrock, ensuring that sensitive data does not leave the private network during fine-tuning, as required.

Option D: Use AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) keys to encrypt the data.While AWS KMS can encrypt data, encryption alone does not guarantee that data remains within the private network during transfer. This option does not fully meet the requirement.

Chain-of-thought prompting is a prompt engineering technique where you instruct the model to explain its reasoning step by step, which is particularly useful for tasks involving logic, math, or reasoning.

A is correct: Asking the model to "explain its reasoning step by step" directly invokes chain-of-thought prompting, as documented in AWS and generative AI literature.

B is unrelated (prompt injection is a security concern).

C (few-shot) provides examples, but doesn’t specifically require step-by-step reasoning.

D (templating) is about structuring the prompt format.

"Chain-of-thought prompting elicits step-by-step explanations from LLMs, which improves performance on complex reasoning tasks."

(Reference: Amazon Bedrock Prompt Engineering Guide, AWS Certified AI Practitioner Study Guide)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact AWS AI documents:

The F1 score is a standard evaluation metric that represents the harmonic mean of precision and recall.

In AWS ML evaluation guidance:

Precision measures correctness of positive predictions

Recall measures coverage of actual positive cases

F1 score balances both metrics into a single performance indicator

This makes the F1 score particularly useful when evaluating classification performance of foundation models.

Why the other options are incorrect:

Speed (B) is a latency metric.

Cost (C) measures operational efficiency.

Energy efficiency (D) is unrelated to predictive accuracy.

AWS AI document references:

Model Evaluation Metrics on AWS

Classification Performance Measurement

Amazon SageMaker Evaluation Best Practices

AWS documentation identifies hallucinations and inaccuracies as a key challenge when deploying generative AI models in production environments. Hallucinations occur when a model generates responses that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect, unsupported, or misleading.

Generative AI models are probabilistic by nature and do not have an inherent understanding of truth. AWS emphasizes that these models generate outputs based on patterns learned from training data, which can lead to confident but incorrect responses, especially when prompts lack sufficient context or when the model is asked about information outside its training scope.

The other options do not represent disadvantages. High accuracy and reliability are desired outcomes, not limitations. Deterministic behavior is not typical of generative models and is not a disadvantage. Negligible computational requirements are incorrect, as generative models typically require significant compute resources.

AWS recommends mitigation strategies such as Retrieval Augmented Generation, human review, prompt engineering, and output validation to reduce hallucinations. Nevertheless, hallucinations remain a known risk, making this option the correct answer.