AI-assisted drafting tools for engineering design
use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents
Generated preliminary design plans and technical specifications
Engineer A also prepared draft design documents with a AI-assisted drafting tool that was new to the market
Engineer A failed to cite AI software use in both report and design documents
Professional standards for tool disclosure
Must disclose use of AI software and large language models in professional work products
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
AI Language Processing Software (Open-source)
Engineer A used AI language processing software to draft the report
Used to draft environmental assessment report
Engineer A's unfamiliarity with AI software accuracy and originality features led to inadequate quality control
Engineer A's lack of experience with new AI drafting software
Cannot fully utilize AI software capabilities due to lack of previous experience with the tool
Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text
During report and design document preparation
Engineer A only conducted high-level review of AI-generated design documents, missing critical errors
NSPE Code section II.2.b and BER Case 98-3
Cannot rely on AI-generated technical work without comprehensive verification process equivalent to human-created work review
Professional licensure requirements and ethical code enforcement
AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work
Whenever AI tools are used for engineering work
BER Case 90-6: Engineer's Use of Computer Assisted Drafting and Design Tools
Almost 35 years ago, in BER Case 90-6, the BER looked at a hypothetical involving an engineer's use of computer assisted drafting
Referenced as precedent for evaluating ethical use of technology in engineering
BER Case 90-6 before Current AI case discussion
BER Case 98-3: Engineering Competency and Use of CD-ROM Design Software
BER Case 98-3 discussed a solicitation by mail for engineers to use new technology
Referenced to evaluate competency issues with technology use
Advocate for appropriate introduction of new technologies in engineering
BER's historical perspective on CAD, CADD, and AI adoption
Guide professional use of emerging technologies
The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies
Reviewing body evaluating the ethical implications of Engineer A's use of AI tools in engineering practice
Evaluate use of new technologies in engineering
Provide guidance on professional standards
Review ethical considerations in engineering practice
long history of open and welcome advocacy for the introduction of new technologies in engineering work
CausalLink_Professional Seal Application
Maintain client confidentiality per Code section II.1.c
Violated confidentiality requirements without obtaining Client W's permission
When Engineer A used AI for report writing
Engineer A uploading client information to AI open-source interface
When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain
Cannot be terminated - information already exposed
Retained Engineer A for environmental analysis and raised concerns about AI-generated design accuracy
Client requiring environmental engineering services
was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the manufacture, use, and characteristics
Engineer A uploaded client data to AI interface without permission
Cannot upload Client W's confidential information to open-source AI interfaces without prior consent
Professional ethics code and potential legal action
confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client
Throughout project engagement with Client W
Relevant information provided by Client W
Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W
Input into AI software for report and design generation
Engineer A's use of AI for environmental engineering work
Establishes that Engineer A had domain competence but may have lacked competence in AI tool oversight
perform services only in areas of their competence
Competence extends to proper use and oversight of AI tools, not just technical domain knowledge
Competence requirement satisfied when engineer has expertise and properly reviews AI output
Fundamental Canon I.2 states that engineers 'perform services only in areas of their competence'
Use of AI software for report generation and design documents
Central to evaluating whether Engineer A met professional standards
Professional competence requires understanding tools being used, which Engineer A lacked
Engineer A attempted thorough review but still had gaps in understanding
Narrator describing Engineer A's situation
Contextualizes why Engineer A turned to AI assistance
Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing
Recognition of personal limitations in writing competence led to seeking assistance
Previously resolved through mentorship, now attempted through AI
Narrator describing Engineer A's capabilities
Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical, and partly unethical.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's AI use was 'partly ethical, and partly unethical,' the case reveals a critical gap in professional development frameworks for emerging technologies. Engineer A's situation—losing mentorship support precisely when facing unfamiliar AI tools—highlights how traditional competence maintenance structures may be inadequate for rapid technological change. The Board's conclusion implicitly recognizes that competence is not binary but contextual, requiring engineers to develop adaptive learning strategies rather than relying solely on established mentorship patterns.
The Board's conclusion that disclosure is not required 'unless such disclosure is required under Engineer A's contract' establishes a contractual rather than ethical baseline for AI transparency. However, this approach may inadequately address the evolving nature of informed consent in professional services. When AI tools fundamentally alter the nature of professional work products—potentially affecting accuracy, originality, and liability—the traditional contract-based disclosure framework may need supplementation with professional judgment-based disclosure standards.
The use of AI-assisted drafting tools by Engineer A was not unethical per se.
Addressing the implicit question about alternative mentorship arrangements (Q101), Engineer A had several ethically preferable options before resorting to unfamiliar AI tools. These included: seeking temporary mentorship from other qualified professionals, requesting project timeline extensions to allow for skill development, or declining the project while referring Client W to more suitable practitioners. The choice to proceed with AI tools without adequate preparation represents a failure to exhaust reasonable alternatives for maintaining competence, particularly given the public safety implications of groundwater infrastructure design.
From a virtue ethics perspective (Q303), Engineer A's actions reveal a deficiency in the professional virtue of prudence—the practical wisdom to recognize one's limitations and act accordingly. While the desire to serve Client W demonstrates commitment, the decision to use unfamiliar AI tools to compensate for acknowledged weaknesses shows insufficient regard for the potential consequences to public welfare. A virtuous engineer would have prioritized competence development or sought appropriate collaboration rather than relying on technological substitutes for professional judgment and skill.
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).
The case reveals an unresolved tension between the Competence_AICase_Canon and Confidentiality_AICase_Upload principles (Q201). Engineer A faced an impossible choice: either maintain client confidentiality by avoiding AI tools that require data upload, or pursue competence enhancement through AI assistance at the cost of potentially compromising confidential information. The Board's analysis suggests this tension was inadequately resolved, as Engineer A proceeded with data upload without explicit client consent, prioritizing perceived competence over confidentiality protection.
The interaction between ResponsibleCharge_AICase_Violation and Transparency_AICase_Attribution principles demonstrates a fundamental challenge in AI-assisted professional practice. Engineer A's failure to adequately disclose AI contributions while maintaining responsible charge creates a paradox: claiming professional responsibility for work products while obscuring the actual sources of professional judgment. This case suggests that responsible charge in the AI era may require enhanced transparency standards to maintain the integrity of professional accountability.
Confidential Data Upload → Quality Discrepancy Discovery
Engineer A uploading client data to open-source AI interface
Identifies a clear ethical violation in Engineer A's use of AI
Using client data in public AI systems violates confidentiality without explicit permission
Confidentiality cannot be compromised for technological convenience
Cursory Design Review → Technical Error Detection
Engineer A must decide whether to disclose AI tool usage to Client W
Engineer A must verify AI-generated outputs and ensure regulatory compliance
Engineer A must ensure competence in AI tool usage and quality assurance
Engineer A must provide proper supervision transition when AI tools are involved
Resulted in incomplete understanding of AI functionality and failure to cite AI use
Decision to use open-sourced AI software for report drafting
The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool
Assess and validate AI-generated content through cross-checking and verification
First experience with AI drafting software requiring validation methods
Thorough review, cross-checking against journal articles, search engine queries
Quality assurance and accuracy verification obligations
conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
Newly developed during project execution
Required thorough review to maintain ethical compliance
Decision to use AI language processing software for report writing
Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources, and made adjustments to the text
Completion of thorough review and cross-checking
Failed to disclose AI use, leading to client questions about inconsistencies
Best practices and transparency principles
Professional ethics and client relations
Inform Client W when AI substantially contributes to work product
best practices suggest informing clients when AI substantially contributes to a work product
Verify and cross-check AI-generated report content against professional sources
Successfully verified report but failed with design documents
Thorough review process for report writing
Maintain direction and control per Code section II.2.b
Engineer A performed a thorough review, cross-checked key facts against professional sources
Only conducted high-level review, missing critical errors
Conduct comprehensive verification of AI-generated designs equal to human-created work standards
By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating
Provide proper citations and acknowledge AI contributions
Failed to include citations or disclose AI use
Absence of citations in AI-generated report
engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due'
Failed to cite AI tools in design document generation
Client requirements and professional standards
Must cite use of AI-assisted drafting tools in engineering design documents
Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents
Engineer A failed to cite AI software use in draft report
Professional integrity and transparency standards
Client review and professional standards
Must cite use of AI software and large language models in report generation
Failed to include citations and acknowledge AI contribution
Give credit for engineering work including AI contributions and cite technical authorities
facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority
Engineer A was competent in environmental engineering and performed thorough review
Perform services only in areas of competence including proper use of AI tools
Engineer A, as an experienced environmental engineer, was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data
Provide adequate supervision and control
Led to over-reliance on AI tools without proper verification
When Engineer A began working without Engineer B
Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight
Engineer A uploaded client information to open-source AI interface without permission
Must not share Client W's confidential information without prior consent
Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface...tantamount to placing...in the public domain
Protect client confidential information when using AI tools
Uploaded client information to open-source AI without permission
Failed to obtain consent before uploading to AI
Compliance with Code section II.1.c on confidential information
When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information
Professional standards for draft documents
Created potential confusion about document completeness despite draft labeling
Submission of draft report with seal to Client W
submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law
Analyze groundwater monitoring data and assess contaminant risks
Engineer A was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data
Years of experience as environmental engineer
Perform services only in areas of competence per Canon I.2
Engineer A, as an experienced environmental engineer, was competent to analyze groundwater monitoring data and assess contaminant risks
Analyze groundwater monitoring data from environmental sites
Applied to analyze data for emerging contaminant report
Over a year of site observation and monitoring
Environmental assessment and reporting obligations
perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year
Demonstrated over more than one year period
Resulted in misaligned dimensions and omitted safety features being submitted to client
When reviewing AI-assisted drafting tool output
Decision to only conduct high-level review of AI-generated designs
Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions
When Client W reviewed the design documents
Client W unaware of AI involvement in document creation
Failure to cite AI software use in report and design documents
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models... Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools
Failed to disclose AI's substantial contribution to work products
When submitting AI-assisted work products
Failure to cite AI contributions and technical sources
the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority
Led Engineer A to seek AI tools as alternative support for report 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
Required immediate revision to meet professional and regulatory standards
Discovery of misaligned dimensions and missing safety features
Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
Failed to provide adequate QA review of AI-generated content
Professional review and licensure requirements
Provide experienced-based quality assurance review of all work products
Engineer A, as the engineer in Responsible Charge...is required to provide an experienced-based quality assurance review
Failed to establish alternative QA after mentor retired
Client expectations and professional standards
Must implement appropriate review processes for all deliverables
Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions
Ensure designs meet local regulations and safety standards
Failed to ensure AI-generated designs met all regulatory requirements
Attempted compliance but failed to identify key safety features
Safety and regulatory compliance obligations
omission of key safety features required by local regulations
Demonstrated inadequately during design document preparation
Submitted designs missing required safety features
Local regulations and professional standards
Regulatory review and client requirements
Must verify designs meet all local regulatory requirements
Only conducted high-level review without proper oversight
Maintain active engagement and personal decision-making from conception to completion
Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
Maintain active engagement and supervisory control from conception to completion
Applied seal to AI-generated work with limited personal involvement
Failed to maintain responsible charge over AI-generated designs
Compliance with licensure law and Code section III.8.a
Must maintain personal decision-making authority throughout engineering process
applied their seal consistent with state law
Errors in AI-generated design could have led to safety hazards
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards
Strong technical expertise in environmental engineering
Recognized strength enabling client retention
Several years of experience and professional engineering license
Technical analysis and engineering design obligations
Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license
Developed over several years of practice
Produce technical reports and documentation
Self-identified area of lower confidence requiring support
Previous reliance on mentor guidance and quality assurance reviews
Professional reporting and documentation obligations
Ongoing development, previously supported by mentorship
Motivated reliance on AI tools and previous dependence on Engineer B's reviews
Long-standing personal assessment of writing skills
Only conducted cursory review of AI-generated design plans
Must thoroughly verify AI-generated outputs before professional use
Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans
Used unfamiliar AI software for critical client deliverables
Professional standards and client expectations
Must become familiar with AI software functionality before professional use
Before using tool for client deliverables
Provide guidance and quality assurance for technical reports
Previously supported Engineer A's report development
Years of mentorship and supervisory review
Quality assurance and mentorship obligations
relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
Primary engineer responsible for delivering report and design documents using AI assistance
Prepare comprehensive report on organic compound
Using AI software without disclosure while applying professional seal
less confident in their technical writing
Engineer A's reliance on Engineer B's guidance before Engineer B's retirement
Former mentor no longer available to provide guidance
Previously provided guidance and quality assurance reviews
their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired
Engineer B retirement before Engineer A needing to deliver report and design documents
Engineer A relied on AI without adequate engineering judgment application
Technology must never replace or substitute for engineering judgment
Professional standards and licensure requirements
technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
Continuous throughout engineering practice
Engineer A's use of AI for report writing
Establishes that AI use itself is not deceptive
Using AI assistance is not inherently deceptive if work is accurate and properly reviewed
No deception if qualifications not misrepresented and content accurate
Fundamental Canon I.5 requires an Engineer to 'avoid deceptive acts,' which was not violated here
Professional responsibility for AI-generated content
Raises question of integrity in sealing partially AI-generated work
Professional seal represents personal accountability for work product
Engineer A sealed work despite not fully understanding AI contribution
AI-generated designs omitted required safety features
Must include key safety features required by local regulations
Local regulations for groundwater infrastructure safety
Identified missing safety features in AI-generated design
Mentor Loss Event → Quality Discrepancy Discovery
Engineer A had to find alternative methods (AI) to compensate for lost mentorship
Cannot access Engineer B's guidance and quality assurance reviews due to retirement
But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
National Society of Professional Engineers
Referenced throughout for ethical standards and requirements
NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778: Definition of Responsible Charge
NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
Defining 'Responsible Charge' for evaluating Engineer A's oversight
Open-sourced AI software for report generation
Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report
Used to synthesize information and generate initial draft of contamination report
Engineer A's reliance on AI-generated plans without proper oversight
Core principle violated when Engineer A conducted only high-level review
technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
Professional judgment must guide and validate all technology outputs
Technology enhances but cannot replace professional judgment
the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
Various academic and professional authors
Professional journal articles (multiple, unspecified)
cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles
Cross-checking key facts in AI-generated report
Client required revision to ensure compliance
Must satisfy necessary professional and regulatory standards
ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards
During document preparation and submission
AI-generated design documents with safety omissions
Central to evaluating whether Engineer A's limited review of AI output was ethical
hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
AI errors that could lead to safety hazards violate the paramount duty to public welfare
Public safety overrides efficiency gains from AI tools
The errors in the AI-generated design documents could have led to regulatory noncompliance and safety hazards, conflicting with the Fundamental Canon I.1, 'hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public'
AI-generated engineering design documents
Demonstrates risk to public welfare from inadequate AI oversight
Public welfare requires ensuring safety features are included in designs
Client identified failures requiring revision to meet standards
Was Engineer A’s use of AI to create the report text ethical, given that Engineer A thoroughly checked the report?
Should Engineer A have sought alternative mentorship or quality assurance arrangements before proceeding with AI tools, given their acknowledged technical writing limitations?
What ethical obligations arise when an engineer uses unfamiliar technology tools in professional practice without adequate training or experience?
Does the open-source nature of the AI tools create additional ethical considerations regarding data security, intellectual property, and professional liability?
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?
How should Engineer A balance the Competence_AICase_Canon requirement against the Confidentiality_AICase_Upload obligation when AI tools require data input to function effectively?
Does the ResponsibleCharge_AICase_Violation principle conflict with the Transparency_AICase_Attribution principle when disclosure might undermine client confidence in professional judgment?
How does the ProfessionalJudgment_AICase_Substitute principle interact with the Competence_TechnicalWriting_Facts when an engineer's weakness in one area leads to AI dependency?
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?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to maintain competence when using unfamiliar AI tools without adequate preparation?
From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential benefits of AI-assisted engineering work justify the risks to public welfare and professional integrity identified in this case?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of prudence and integrity when choosing to rely on AI tools to compensate for acknowledged weaknesses?
Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A had disclosed the AI usage upfront and obtained explicit client consent before proceeding?
What if Engineer A had declined the project due to the unavailability of Engineer B's mentorship and their own technical writing limitations?
How would the ethical assessment differ if Engineer A had used proprietary AI tools with established professional validation rather than open-source software?
Engineer A's oversight of AI-generated engineering plans
Engineer A failed to maintain responsible charge by not being actively engaged
being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion
Reviewing AI output without involvement in design process violates responsible charge
Active engagement required regardless of AI assistance
Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge
Engineer A failed to maintain responsible charge when relying on AI without proper oversight
Must be actively engaged in engineering process from conception to completion with personal decision-making authority
Licensure law and professional standards
AI-generated plans omitted key safety features required for compliance
Fundamental Canon I.1 and local regulations
Cannot omit key safety features necessary for regulatory compliance in design documents
Regulatory compliance checks and professional review
key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted
During design document preparation and review
Groundwater monitoring data from observed site
groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year
Analysis for contamination report and infrastructure design
Site observation overlaps Client W retention for report preparation
Led Engineer A to seek AI assistance for report writing
Limited by personal lack of confidence in technical writing abilities
AI's substantial contribution to report and design documents
Critical for maintaining trust when AI substantially contributes to work product
Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due
AI contributions should be disclosed even though AI is not human
Proactive disclosure strengthens trust despite no universal guidelines
AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9, '[e]ngineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due'
Submission of draft report and design documents to Client W
Key ethical violation regarding honest representation of work methods
Transparency would require disclosure of AI tool usage in work product creation
Engineer A chose non-disclosure, potentially violating transparency obligations
Narrator describing Engineer A's actions