Case Repository
Filtering by:
Signing Plans/Documents
2025
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Practice
Case #24-02
Synthesized
Questions:
- 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...
- 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?
Conclusions:
- 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.
2022
Impaired Engineering
Case #22-7
Synthesized
Questions:
- Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?
- Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?
- Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?
- ... and 2 more
Conclusions:
- It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
- It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.
- Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
- Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. As Engineer B’s friend and with Engineer B’s approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B’s business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.
- Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. If Engineer A did the reporting as noted above, Engineer A’s report could be styled to indicate Engineer R’s concurrence.