Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical, and partly unethical. Engineer A was competent and did thoroughly review and verify the AI-generated content, ensuring accuracy and compliance with professional standards. However, Engineer A did not obtain client permission to disclose private information, nor did Engineer A document required technical citations. Ethical use of AI to create the report text must satisfy all pertinent requirements.The use of AI-assisted drafting tools by Engineer A was not unethical per se. However, Engineer A’s misuse of the tool, by failing to maintain Responsible Charge over the AI tool and its output before sealing the document and providing it to Client W, was unethical.Similar to other software used in the design or detailing process, Engineer A has no professional or ethical obligation to disclose AI use to Client W (unless such disclosure is required under Engineer A’s contract with Client W). However, at the time of the BER’s review of this case there is no universal guideline mandating AI disclosure in engineering work. Ethical principles favor transparency when AI plays a substantial role in generating work products. To uphold ethical standards, engineers integrating AI into their practice should adopt rigorous verification processes and consider disclosing AI involvement when it plays a significant role in the final product.

The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies in engineering work, so long as the technologies are used in such a way that the engineering is done professionally. Artificial intelligence (AI) language processing software and AI-assisted drafting tools are in this category. The AI issues examined in this case are characteristic of engineering practice and are discussed and analyzed accordingly. However, other ethical considerations may arise when applying AI in different engineering contexts such as engineering education or engineering research. The following discussion does not attempt to address any of the potential legal considerations that may arise in such circumstances. Almost 35 years ago, in BER Case 90-6 , the BER looked at a hypothetical involving an engineer’s use of computer assisted drafting and design tools. The BER was asked if it was ethical for an engineer to sign and seal documents prepared using such a system. The introductory paragraph in that case gives a nice summary of the issue and looks ahead to one of the questions we see in this case – use of AI. The case begins: In recent years, the engineering profession has been ‘revolutionized’ by exponential growth in new and innovative computer technological breakthroughs. None have been more dynamic than the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence [AI]. The BER considers the change to CAD to merely represent a drafting enhancement. The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology. As night follows day one can be assured that CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has...

Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the manufacture, use, and characteristics of an organic compound identified as an emerging contaminant of concern. This work required Engineer A to perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year. In addition, Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure at the same site.Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing. Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents. The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool. The AI drafting software was also open-sourced.For the report, Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information and generate an initial draft of the necessary report. Engineer A input the information gathered from Client W into the AI software, and, after a few refining prompts, received a first draft of the report generated by the AI software.Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorou...

Was Engineer A’s use of AI to create the report text ethical, given that Engineer A thoroughly checked the report?Was Engineer A’s use of AI-assisted drafting tools to create the engineering design documents ethical, given that Engineer A reviewed the design at a high level?If the use of AI was acceptable, did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to disclose the use of AI in any form to the Client?

I.1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Subject Reference Duty to the Public I.2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Subject Reference Competence Qualifications for Work I.5. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising II.1.c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code. Subject Reference Confidential Information II.2.a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. Subject Reference Competence Qualifications for Work II.2.b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. Subject Reference Competence Signing Plans/Documents III.3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public. III.8.a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. Subject Reference Licensure Laws III.9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others. Subject Reference Credit for Engineering Work Proprietary Interests