A cautionary tale: the structural engineer and the AI-powered architect

CROSS-UK stated: “To a non-engineer, the report submitted by the architect appears robust, detailed and well-written with supporting structural analysis figures. However, the Reporter [engineer – ed.] observed that the technical content contained factual inaccuracies, including within the structural model images presented, despite the provision of relevant structural information. 

“On further inspection, the Reporter says that they are confident that the calculation report was largely written by AI. This was supported by how rapidly the report was rewritten following the Reporter’s initial comments to the architect and how new errors were introduced in later revisions.”

The engineer reported that they were “extremely concerned” that the design may not have been produced by an engineer and that AI had been heavily relied upon. “In this case, the building may have suffered damage from overloading, but in other cases the outcome might lead to structural failure and injury,” CROSS-UK noted.

The engineer stated to CROSS-UK that the architect appeared to dismiss their concerns as lacking validity. The architect maintained that they do this type of work frequently without any issue.

CROSS-UK said: “The Reporter says that this example sets a dangerous precedent for our industry. They have yet to encounter an example of AI producing accurate technical output, but it does almost always provide a false sense of security and competency. The Reporter considers that reliance upon AI should not replace, or supplement, engineering judgement and technical understanding.”

The CROSS-UK expert panel noted: “AI is not currently capable of drawing contextual inferences in the way an experienced engineer can. The interpretation of context, professional judgement, historic construction practices and deterioration mechanisms remains an important aspect of professional engineering competence. 

“This reinforces the view that AI should be regarded as a tool which, like any engineering software or methodology, requires competent professional oversight and judgement. Responsibility for checking, including interpreting, validating, and approving engineering outputs, must remain with suitably qualified and experienced structural engineers. 

“All building professionals involved in construction work are required to operate within the limits of their professional competence and expertise, ensuring that they only undertake work for which they possess the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours. The report refers to flat slab construction, which is a form requiring structural engineering expertise in design and checking, so specialist skills are required. 

“In practice, professionals must recognise the limits of their own expertise and seek appropriate input from suitably qualified specialists where matters fall outside their competence. Failure to do so may compromise regulatory compliance, building safety, and the proper discharge of their statutory duties.”

Keep up to date with DC+: sign up for the midweek newsletter.