Brian Munday, Executive Director

It seems like everyone is writing an article these days about something to do with artificial intelligence. Here’s mine.
 
Where does one start when trying to write about AI? Well, I’m not going to start by having AI write this article for me. There are still some things I need to do for myself.
 
When AI started to hit the general media and become the next “it” thing, my mind would think back to Dr. Richard Daystrom and the ultimate computer (look it up) or maybe The Terminator for you modern types. Today’s AI isn’t that. At least not yet. Copilot, Gemini and ChatGPT don’t have feelings and emotions. Although there are some AI apps out there that might imitate emotions, we don’t yet have Data androids who are “self-aware, sapient, and sentient who serve as our chief operations officer.”
 
So where does artificial intelligence fit in within the context of the ALSA, the land surveying profession and the regulatory world?
 
The first thing is, in my opinion, is that there are three distinct aspects of AI for us to consider – and they do not necessarily overlap. Those three distinct aspects are: the ALSA, the land surveying profession and the regulatory world.
 
What do I mean by that?
 
The ALSA
First, there is the ALSA or, more specifically, how the ALSA employees use AI within our office environment. Each ALSA staff member to one extent or another has used AI to do some routine office stuff – prepare a set of committee meeting minutes, summarize a report, and even create a logo for an event.
 
Even though I might consider some of these AI tasks now routine, there are elements of its use that anyone who manages an office or manages staff needs to be aware of. Can any staff member use any AI app of their choosing? How does the office protect the use/misuse of private and confidential information when entering prompts into your favourite AI app? What protocols or procedures are in place to make sure that the information that AI returns is accurate and complete?
 
These are just three questions that any organization that uses AI needs to address. There are many more. As executive director, I will be working on a policy for the use of AI by ALSA staff. Thanks to my counterparts who have already worked on their own policy, we are not having to start at Square One.
 
The Land Surveying Profession
Second, there is the land surveying profession. At the 2024 AGM, Dr. Rob Radovanovic presented an interesting seminar on AI and its potential use by land surveyors.
 
Long-time Alberta Land Surveyor Bill Hunter shared with me that the UK-based Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has published a standard for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in surveying practice as it aims to guide the profession through the rapid evolution of AI technologies.
 
Set to take effect on March 9, 2026, Responsible use of artificial intelligence in surveying practice sets out mandatory requirements and best practice expectations for RICS members and regulated firms
 
It is an 18-page document and worth the read. I would be interested in knowing what you – practicing Alberta Land Surveyors – think of such a document. Would something similar be helpful in the land surveying profession here?
 
I found that the RICS standard covers the basic high-level issues that need to be addressed in a standard – which seem to boil down to what is the risk and do your due diligence. Out of necessity, it’s short on detail. If you’re looking for the AI equivalent of “what are the minimum improvements that need to be shown on a real property report,” you’re not going to find it here. Even in today’s digital age, the RICS standard still puts an emphasis on written assessments and procedures.
 
The ALSA as the Regulator
So the ALSA office itself will use AI. Land surveyors will use AI. But, now, what about does the ALSA as a regulator need to do or know about when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence?
 
What do I mean by all of that?
 
In June, an Ontario judge tossed a court filing seemingly written with AI. Last year, a BC lawyer was alleged to have submitted bogus case law imagined by AI. The Law Society of BC launched an investigation.
 
What would happen if a land surveyor used AI to re-establish where it thought the boundaries were supposed to be? It depends? What does it depend on? Could a land surveyor prepare a survey by solely using AI without anyone ever going in the field, checking the calculations, or reviewing the plan?
 
In the same vein, is it acceptable for an articling pupil to use AI to write a project report? Maybe it’s ok to use AI to check for grammar and spelling mistakes but is it acceptable to have AI write the entire report based on a few prompts?
 
Is it acceptable for a practitioner to use AI to respond to the Director of Practice Review’s questions about your survey that’s been selected for review? Again, maybe to help with grammar and clarity but I have to wonder if it would be acceptable to use it to write the entire response.
 
Is it acceptable for landowners to be unable to speak to the responsible Alberta Land Surveyor about questions about their survey and wind up in the never-ending chatbot loop?
 
Should the ALSA accept a complaint from a landowner when it appears “obvious” that the complaint was written using AI and contains random buzzwords here and there?
 
How should the ALSA respond when it sends a letter to someone alleging they are practicing land surveying without being a registered land surveyor and the response we get is “obviously” written by an AI app? Do I have confidence that the human intelligence understands the impact of what they have done and have learned from it?
 
Time to take a deep breath.
 
My questions/examples above are only those that come from my very human imagination. We have not had to deal with them yet (I think). But it seems like we will need to before too long.
 
If the ALSA is going to do anything relative to artificial intelligence, I really believe we need to look at the regulatory impact of AI and ask ourselves what is acceptable or unacceptable.
 
It’s likely the hardest thing for us to address – which also means it’s probably the most important.