OT: Ethical concerns around AI in engineering

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

A more recent issue that is raising ethical concerns is the use of AI. Specialist Staffing Group’s (SSG) 2025 STEM Workforce Report, “Futures in Formation,” identified AI as a major trend reshaping how organizations recruit STEM talent. This includes roles such as engineering.

In the report’s survey of more than 5,000 STEM professionals, about two-thirds said they used AI at work. More than half reported using unauthorized AI tools, which can increase risk related to data security, regulatory compliance, intellectual property, and cybersecurity.

“I’d argue if you are using AI, and your employer doesn’t know it and doesn’t have some oversight of it and doesn’t have it included in governance, that would put you in a gray area of ethical breach because there’s risk to using AI,” Groover said.

It’s imperative for companies to establish clear AI policies, the SSG report concluded. But the survey found that only 63 percent said their organization has guidance for AI use.

Groover agreed that it’s up to companies to take action. “If you don’t have an AI policy, your employees are still using it. It’s the responsibility of the organization to make sure the guardrails are set up and defined,” he said.

Creating a culture of ethics

It’s not just AI use that employers need to govern. Organizations should create a culture that models ethical behavior for its engineers, Groover said.

This means creating an environment where:
• Projects have realistic budgets and deadlines (as opposed to those that could lead to cutting corners and making mistakes).
• Engineers decide whether or not a product is ready for use, and non-engineers don’t override those decisions.
• The company is willing to break bad news to clients or customers that more time is needed to ensure the safety of a product.
• Employees can raise ethical concerns without fear of retaliation.

Groover said when he worked in the nuclear power industry, engineers used the acronym “STAR,” which stands for Stop, Think, Act, and Review.

“One of the most difficult things to do is to stop—because that costs time, and time is money,” Groover said. “But that’s the culture, and it has to be that way for safety purposes.”

Personal responsibility

It’s also critical for engineers to take responsibility, Groover said. With every project, you need to ask yourself: What is the worst thing that can happen if I am wrong? And can I live with that?

“This is the big question to ask—which can be uncomfortable—but you need to ask it, coupled with the statement of ‘I might be wrong,’” he said. “Doing so puts you squarely on the path of ethical decision making.”

The safety of the public rests with engineering professionals. They ensure that automobiles, trucks, aircraft, ships, railroads, high/low rise buildings, bridges, dams, power plants, chemical/refinery plants, pipelines, mining/drilling, electrical systems, and everything else that can pose a danger to the public.

4 Likes
2

Engineering sold out to corporate interests long ago.

That’s why we have the “industrial exemption” to professional engineering registration laws. Wouldn’t want the “for-profit” motive muddied up by any ethical considerations.

The only barrier is whatever financial or legal liability you can impose on top executives. Under the crony capitalism system, those are few.

intercst

5 Likes
3

I recently asked Gemini what the difference is between “generative AI” and the kind of dedicated AI processors developed by the Chinese which recently won the “fastest supercomputer” laurel.

Gemini answered that generative AI is trained on existing data sets and programmed to make inferences based on those data sets. This equips it to do programming and many tasks that require novel connections. But generative AI can make mistakes and even hallucinate.

Conversely, the dedicated Chinese-style AI is precise and computational. It is designed for engineering and math.

If American engineers are surreptitiously using generative AI in their designs I would be concerned that the designs may be less safe. If they are using dedicated, engineering-oriented design-type AI it would be a different story.

The other factors mentioned in the article – giving engineers the final say over the quality and timing of projects – are demonstrably degraded by the corporate power structure.
Wendy

3 Likes
4

Being an engineer carries a commitment to being ethical, much like doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath. There are consequences for engineers who are caught being unethical. What’s worth losing your PE license over?

No matter a company’s ethics, one would hope that that engineers would think twice before bowing down to their master’s unethical whims.

Then again, we’re seeing lots of examples of people who violate their oaths every single day.

7 Likes
5

Being human carries a commitment to being ethical!

The Captain

5 Likes
6

The vast majority of engineers in the US aren’t licensed and haven’t taken a “Hippocratic oath”.

{{ An estimated \(20\%\) of all engineers in the U.S. hold an active Professional Engineer (PE) license. However, licensure rates vary wildly by industry. While over \(80\%\) of civil and structural engineers are licensed, fewer than \(5\%\) of engineers in manufacturing, aerospace, automotive, and petroleum fields carry a PE. [1, 2, 3, 4]

intercst
(licensed in NY and TX)

7

That’s true. Since states govern licensing, it’s very difficult to implement PE requirements for things that travel across state boundaries. I think that’s why most of the exemptions exist…maybe not.

8

Engineers have been using “AI” for decades. The foundation of the following programs are all algo intensive

Ansys
Nastran
Mat Lab
Simulink
Codeware Compress

…and a host of other proprietary algo routines are no different today than they were back in the 1990’s when this stuff started. The difference is how easy it is to get to these functionalities and how connected they are.

The burden is still on the engineer to understand the function of the algo set and the proper boundary cases to determine value.

AI is helping the vocal, casual, lay-person set who also happens to be the most vocal, participative and socially connected group.

The engineer who designed your right front hub assembly is likely not the youtuber who is showing shiny graphics, cool capabilities and “interesting” results for monetization. Those engineers have a day job. (some passion projects overlap)

Unfortunately, that day job has been compromised substantially by project/program value systems. Promoting less qualified engineers along with more qualified engineers results in a couple of interesting paradigms.

Group 1. MBA influenced - The less qualified engineers must rely on Experts - they are people managers who have less technical standing - and they know it.
Group 2. Technical leader who drags things out “to be sure” - The more qualified engineers ARE experts who do people management.

The difference between these two team cultures is significant.

Group 1 is more influenced in the short term and the long term by management thinking, efficiency, productivity and other MBA style concerns. Prone to adapt or accept challenges to improve technical services delivery “efficiency”.

Group 2 represents road blocks, ethical concerns directly in management meetings and long term side boards that restrict, mitigate and reduce those decisions which would gloss over ‘technical design’ concerns.

Group 2 (technical managers) usually end up at a low level in the org, keeping compliance while impeding profit.

Group 1 (influenced by MBAs) get promoted and influence the team size, effort and function to eliminate the features which prolong development time and resources for Group 2 teams.

There is a balance here, but the long term cultural trend is to cut, minimize and restrict technical freedom by technical leaders.

The system that forces them into ‘lighter’ review cycles is FULL of engineers.

The fact that engineers are responsible for BOTH aspects of this (directly and indirectly) has nothing to do with engineering and everything to do with people culture and focus on being a company player who challenges teams for efficiency and expediency.

AI is just a tool. A tool which magnifies the impacts of the above cultural paradigm.

3 Likes
9

You make up stories with little facts and a lot of personal bias. Ethics rest on following Federal, State and Local laws and regulations. Engineers who knowing ignore or do not meet these requirements are leaving their companies in danger of lawsuits and the public safety compromised. Engineers that discover their designs may present new safety issues have a duty to have these concerns presented to their management in private or in meetings.

For example, in nuclear power plant design, manufacture and construction deviations that could effect safety must be reported to the NRC promptly. This process has be working for decades ever since 10 CFR Part 21 was promulgated:

10 CFR Part 21 outlines the requirements for reporting defects and noncompliance in nuclear regulatory practices. This regulation is crucial for ensuring safety and compliance within the nuclear industry.

Scope of the Regulation

  • Applies to individuals, partnerships, corporations, and entities that must obtain a certificate of compliance or an approved compliance plan under 10 CFR Part 76.

Key Provisions

  • Entities must notify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of any defects or noncompliance that could affect safety.
  • The regulation emphasizes the importance of timely reporting to mitigate risks associated with defects.

Reporting Process

  • Reports must include a description of the defect, its implications, and any corrective actions taken.
  • The NRC provides guidelines for evaluating deviations and reporting defects
10

I’m a CPA, with a code of ethics not all that different from other professions, like engineers.

In my experience, you can’t legislate ethics. You can proscribe certain actions and prescribe others. You can set performance standards.

But the real test of ethics is what professionals do when there isn’t a rule or regulation. When there is a unique or unusual situation. Or when they are presented with sufficient money or power to make them consider breaking their code of ethics.

Real ethics is an internal thing, which can’t be imposed from external sources.

—Peter

6 Likes
11

I am not trying to link CPAs or Lawyers into the same ethics mold as engineers.

Engineers and scientists work on science based rules that protect the physical safety of the public and the economic health of the common from accidents. CPAs do not work on science based rules that protect the physical safety of the public or the economic health of the common due to accidents.

We have seen many instances of engineers not acting ethically when they design, construct, or manufacture: electrical systems, power plants, buildings, dams, bridges, automobiles, aircraft, ships, chemical plants, etc. that are not in accordance with science based rules. These flawed engineering items can fail killing people and costing millions or billions of dollars.

Engineers can not ignore the laws of science and still protect the physical safety of the public or the economic safety of the common. When there is no developed science backing up a new engineered system, structure or component, then the role of the engineer is to test the new system, structure or component. This testing can be done physically or analytically. Only when the testing results are positive, can the construction and manufacture proceed.

12

I disagree with your blanket statement - Most engineers follow science based rules and regulations. Some engineers do bend to corporate interests, but they are a small minority working for unethical corporations. In my 35 years as an engineer, senior engineer, supervisory engineer, and engineering manager, I have never been asked by Westinghouse or Bechtel corporate interests to ignore or violate any science based rules, regulations, or laws.

If we take your statement to be true, then why do engineers try to make the systems, structures and components they design safer, more efficient, and less costly with corporate support? Why are we not experiencing massive failures of engineered products if you claim engineers sold out to corporate interests.

2 Likes
13

I literally worked in the same teams at the same company you worked for in your illustrious career. Yes, I even worked for BNI and BP.

14

Why not? Engineers are subject to the same pressures from clients as other professionals - break the rules to get what the client wants instead of what is right.

Sure, you can’t break the laws of physics, but not all engineering is science. There are man-made laws and agreements in play as well. Earthquake codes. Fire codes. Electric codes. Building codes. Design agreements. Function agreements. Suitability for the purpose.

Any and all of those can be breached by an unethical engineer.

—Peter

5 Likes
15

I disagree with your points. You do not seem to understand how engineers work and their responsibilities. First of all most engineers work for companies. Clients buy products from these companies or they hire these companies to design and build facilities for them. These products and facilities come with guarantees for performance. Their is no incentive for the companies to violate any codes and standards because the companies would suffer great financial penalties. (Look at Boeing MAX 737 failing to monitor and catch so many design and manufacturing errors causing financial penalties, schedule delays, lost reputation, and criminal charges)

Engineering designs for products, systems and facilities are a never single person issue. Every design has drawings, specifications and calculations that are reviewed and checked independently. Manufacturing and construction processes require the same rigorous checking and quality control of materials used, qualified workers, following code requirements.

CPAs are not ever held responsible for the life and death responsibilities of engineers.

Corporations: Most engineers work for large companies in sectors like buildings, power plants, mining, metals, energy, refinery, chemicals, transportation, pharma, automotive, aerospace and technology. Manufacturing of products and construction of facilities. Companies design and build structures, machines, computers, mechanical and electrical components, optimize manufacturing processes, or develop new technologies.

Government Agencies: Engineers can serve in federal, state, or local agencies, working on infrastructure projects, environmental regulations, public safety systems, or defense programs

Research Institutions & Universities: Some engineers work in labs, research centers, or as faculty, focusing on innovation, R&D, or teaching

Consulting Firms: Engineering consultants provide expert advice to clients across industries, often on project design, feasibility studies, or technical problem-solving.

Specialized Industries: Engineers may work in telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, healthcare, environmental protection, and space exploration.

Education & Training: Some engineers teach at universities, vocational schools, or technical colleges, or mentor apprentices and students.

16

Your example of the MAX737 is exactly the kind of thing the thread is about. Boeing bowed to the necessity of designing a new plane, but hid the need to retrain pilots because the airlines didn’t want the expense. So engineers surreptitiously included new software but didn’t bother telling pilots about it and several crashes with hundreds of fatalities ensued.

Boeing pushed an “unethical” solution to customers, and engineers were complicit in not alerting authorities that it was being done.

Yes, Boeing and society paid for it in the long run, but that hardly supports your contention that it doesn’t happen. It did happen and the price was huge. I am sure there are times when out happens and “they get away with it”. The building stands, or stands for 20 years before collapsing (see: Florida condo, or Korean department store). The highway interchange doesn’t fall immediately after construction - or maybe not at all - it doesn’t mean that corners weren’t cut, it just means that disaster didn’t strike through a series of lucky outcomes.

5 Likes
17

I understand quite well how engineers work and their responsibilities. My father and brother are engineers.

What you seem to be forgetting is that engineers are people. Codes of ethics have to do with the human side of any profession. Including engineers.

Of course not. CPAs are held responsible for the consequences of their own professional actions. And while CPAs are not typically making life and death decisions, the consequences of breaching our codes of ethics can impact people for the rest of their lives, just like engineers.

Professionals have codes of ethics because they are humans and humans can engage in unprofessional behavior, negatively impacting the lives of the public we serve and damaging the standing of the profession.

—Peter

8 Likes
18

I did say there are cases like Boeing 737MAX where engineers were complicit in unethical pressures from Boeing management. I said that incidents like that are the exception in the engineering profession.

19

You make big claims (in beginning of this thread) about the engineering profession having sold out to corporate interests. And then you use your father and brother as examples of engineers who sold out to corporate interests. I really do not understand why you hate the engineering profession so much.

I said that ethics failures in engineering are rare. The engineering profession has published codes of ethics. Here are the ones for mechanical engineers issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):

p-15-7-ethics_2.pdf

20

You are describing construction situations that do not involve engineers. Engineers do not perform construction. If the construction company does not follow the engineering design drawings and specifications, then that is the responsibility of the construction company - not the responsibility of engineering. This happens when engineering was not included in the review of actual construction. That is where ethics are violated by construction companies.