The Engineer's Dilemma: A Review of Establishing a Legal Framework for Integrating Machine Learning in Construction by Navigating Precedents and Industry Expectations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08908v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:28:32 GMT
• Title: The Engineer's Dilemma: A Review of Establishing a Legal Framework for Integrating Machine Learning in Construction by Navigating Precedents and Industry Expectations
• Authors: M. Z. Naser,
• Abstract summary: Despite widespread interest in machine learning (ML), the engineering industry has not yet fully adopted ML-based methods.<n>This paper explores how engineers can navigate legal principles and legislative justifications that support and/or contest the deployment of ML technologies.
• Score: 3.8314877221880512
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the widespread interest in machine learning (ML), the engineering industry has not yet fully adopted ML-based methods, which has left engineers and stakeholders uncertain about the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern their decisions. This gap remains unaddressed as an engineer's decision-making process, typically governed by professional ethics and practical guidelines, now intersects with complex algorithmic outputs. To bridge this gap, this paper explores how engineers can navigate legal principles and legislative justifications that support and/or contest the deployment of ML technologies. Drawing on recent precedents and experiences gained from other fields, this paper argues that analogical reasoning can provide a basis for embedding ML within existing engineering codes while maintaining professional accountability and meeting safety requirements. In exploring these issues, the discussion focuses on established liability doctrines, such as negligence and product liability, and highlights how courts have evaluated the use of predictive models. We further analyze how legislative bodies and standard-setting organizations can furnish explicit guidance equivalent to prior endorsements of emergent technologies. This exploration stresses the vitality of understanding the interplay between technical justifications and legal precedents for shaping an informed stance on ML's legitimacy in engineering practice. Finally, our analysis catalyzes a legal framework for integrating ML through which stakeholders can critically assess the responsibilities, liabilities, and benefits inherent in ML-driven engineering solutions.

Related papers

• When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance [7.743029842436036]
  This paper establishes the first comprehensive review of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Transformer-based LLMs exhibit emergent capabilities such as contextual reasoning and generative argumentation.<n>This review proposes a novel taxonomy that maps legal roles to computationally subtasks and implements the Toulmin argumentation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T13:26:34Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• Engineering the Law-Machine Learning Translation Problem: Developing Legally Aligned Models [0.0]
  We introduce a five-stage interdisciplinary framework that integrates legal and ML-technical analysis during machine learning model development.<n>This framework facilitates designing ML models in a legally aligned way and identifying high-performing models that are legally justifiable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T13:41:17Z)
• A Comprehensive Framework for Reliable Legal AI: Combining Specialized Expert Systems and Adaptive Refinement [0.0]
  Article proposes a novel framework combining expert systems with a knowledge-based architecture to improve the precision and contextual relevance of AI-driven legal services.<n>This framework utilizes specialized modules, each focusing on specific legal areas, and incorporates structured operational guidelines to enhance decision-making.<n>The proposed approach demonstrates significant improvements over existing AI models, showcasing enhanced performance in legal tasks and offering a scalable solution to provide more accessible and affordable legal services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T14:00:11Z)
• A Survey on Large Language Models for Critical Societal Domains: Finance, Healthcare, and Law [65.87885628115946]
  Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing the landscapes of finance, healthcare, and law. We highlight the instrumental role of LLMs in enhancing diagnostic and treatment methodologies in healthcare, innovating financial analytics, and refining legal interpretation and compliance strategies. We critically examine the ethics for LLM applications in these fields, pointing out the existing ethical concerns and the need for transparent, fair, and robust AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T22:43:02Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI [64.54460979588075]
  We examine a notable yet understudied AI design process in the legal domain that took place over a decade ago. We show how an interactive simulation methodology allowed computer scientists and lawyers to become co-designers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T15:46:52Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  The legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL) This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-19T18:35:58Z)
• On the Morality of Artificial Intelligence [154.69452301122175]
  We propose conceptual and practical principles and guidelines for Machine Learning research and deployment. We insist on concrete actions that can be taken by practitioners to pursue a more ethical and moral practice of ML aimed at using AI for social good.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-26T23:06:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.