Field Judgment in the Age of AI

The world of industrial inspection is entering a new phase, one defined not by tools or trade alone but by how we think, assess, and adapt. Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a concept on the horizon; it is a reality. It is here, operating alongside inspectors in real time. 

This article is an account drawn from active field experience. And what’s clear is this: The most significant risk with AI isn’t technical failure. It’s human overconfidence, the temptation to outsource judgment, and the false belief that rapid answers equal accurate ones.

What Has Not Changed Yet

Despite the influx of new tools, the foundational responsibilities of inspection remain unchanged.

• Inspectors are still expected to do the following:
• Recognize when a seemingly compliant condition hides future failure
• Interpret the dynamics of a crew or process beyond what’s on paper
• Take full responsibility for final calls, recommendations, and outcomes

AI can assist, but it does not carry liability. It does not interpret risk nuance, and it does not sign reports. Accountability — legal, ethical, and practical — remains firmly in human hands.

What Has Changed

While the weight of judgment hasn’t shifted, the process leading up to it has undergone changes.

AI now supports inspectors in ways previously unavailable:

• Retrieving code citations in seconds
• Assisting with structured report language
• Cross-referencing logic against standards such as the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC), jurisdictional standards, and standards from organizations such as the ASME, API, and AWS
• Organizing inspection findings with higher speed and consistency
   

What once required books, calls, or manual searches can now be addressed on-site within moments, accelerating accuracy and documentation quality under pressure.

What Will Change

The next phase is about how people use AI. A growing concern is that emerging users are relying on AI to do their thinking, not support it. This presents in subtle ways:

• Accepting the first AI-generated response without validation
• Trusting summaries over reading the source context
• Letting the system structure conclusions instead of using it to refine one’s own

The risk extends beyond potentially inaccurate AI outputs. The real danger is that humans disengage, and if left unchecked, this disengagement will erode the very foundation of good inspection work: situational awareness, critical reasoning, and long-term accountability.

The Way Forward

The future of field judgment relies on augmentation over automation.

Inspectors who will excel are those who do the following:

• Maintain full ownership of their decisions
• Leverage AI for clarity, not certainty
• Stay grounded in the codes, practices, and reasoning that define their discipline

AI can pull documentation, suggest structure, and assist with logic. But only a trained, accountable human can apply that information with the judgment required by real-world conditions. Mastery of this new dynamic is the path forward.

DERRICK HAMILTON (derrickhamil@gmail.com) is boiler inspector at Arise Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, Brecksville, Ohio. He is an AWS CWI, a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector (NBBI), an Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP) Coating Inspector, and an American Petroleum Institute (API) Welding Inspection and Metallurgy Professional, Pipeline Inspector, and Piping Inspector.