Board weighs guidance on AI use and the security of electronic stamps and signatures

The Enforcement Committee reviewed Strategic Objective F3 and discussed whether the board should require disclosure of architects’ use of artificial intelligence or adopt stricter rules for electronic stamps.

Staff summarized recent research showing roughly 59% of architects use AI tools in part of their practice and highlighted concerns including accuracy, security, confidentiality and potential copyright issues. Committee members warned of "hallucination" risks in AI outputs and questioned how an architect could reliably certify they had not used AI when some AI-derived content may be embedded in research or vendor products.

Members debated possible approaches: a disclosure requirement in written contracts, an educational approach urging stronger quality control by licensees, or a regulatory mandate. Several members argued education and clear professional responsibility remain the most pragmatic first step; one committee member suggested heavier penalties when AI use is shown to be causally linked to misconduct. On electronic stamps and signatures, staff noted California civil code treats digital signatures as legally valid; the committee discussed potential partnerships with secure-signature vendors (for example, DocuSign) and outreach to building departments to require more robust verification of stamp/authenticity for electronic submittals.

The committee did not adopt a new regulation but asked staff to track developments and prepare board-level guidance and possible training for licensees.