Board weighs disclosure of AI use and risks of electronic stamps in architecture
Loading...
Summary
Committee discussed requiring disclosure of architects’ use of artificial intelligence, education vs regulation, court sanctions in other fields, and concerns about uncontrolled PDF stamps and the need for more secure digital validation.
The California Architects Board Enforcement Committee examined how artificial intelligence and electronic stamps intersect with professional responsibility. Staff presented recent survey data indicating many architects use AI in practice and suggested disclosure language or a policy statement as entry steps.
Staff noted California has delegated AI guidance to state agencies (California Government Operations Agency, California Department of Technology) and said the board could require disclosure of AI use in written contracts or adapt CCR 160 (professional conduct) to include transparency requirements. "If we were to take any action at all, I think that's where we would start," staff said regarding disclosure language.
Board members debated education versus enforcement. Several members recommended training architects to be cautious with AI outputs; one member pointed to court sanctions in other professions where AI‑generated filings led to sanctions. Another argued for strong deterrents: "If something goes sideways, we will double your penalties if we find out that it is AI," a board member suggested as an enforcement concept, noting assembly of a legislative approach might be needed.
Committee members also discussed electronic stamps and signatures. Staff said many building departments accept PDF stamps and signatures and that architects report misuse of PDF images of stamps by collaborators or contractors. Civil‑code provisions recognize digital signatures generally, complicating any board‑level prohibition on electronic stamps. Members suggested exploring vendor partnerships (DocuSign‑style validation) or requiring more secure submittal processes in coordination with building departments to reduce fraud.
The committee did not adopt new rules but asked staff to gather more information, provide training materials, and report on comparative practices and potential regulatory language for the February board meeting.
