After more than fifteen years in professional regulation, I’ve come back to a simple but important truth: artificial intelligence (AI) can improve regulatory work, but it cannot replace regulatory judgment. That distinction matters more now than ever.
The conversation about AI tends to swing between extremes. On one side, it’s framed as a near-limitless solution to long-standing operational challenges in government. On the other, it’s viewed as a threat to fairness, accountability, and public trust. The reality, as it usually is in regulation, sits somewhere in between.
From my experience as a former regulator and Propelus’s Government Excellence leader, and now as Vice-Chair of the Council of Licensure Education and Regulation’s (CLEAR) AI Workgroup, the question is not whether AI belongs in licensing and regulation. It already does. The real question is how we ensure it strengthens, rather than replaces, human judgment.
AI is neither hero nor villain. It is a tool. And like every tool in the regulatory toolbox, its impact depends entirely on how thoughtfully it is governed.
The public doesn’t trust algorithms. They trust institutions.
At its core, professional regulation has never been about process but rather it is about public protection.
Every license issued, renewed, denied, or disciplined represents a public trust decision. Behind each one is an expectation that a qualified person reviewed the facts, applied professional standards, and accepted responsibility for the outcome. That responsibility cannot be delegated to software.
We’ve all heard horror stories of what happens when it is. Across sectors, well-intended automation has produced outcomes that were inconsistent, difficult to explain, or plainly wrong—but not because the technology was inherently flawed, but because meaningful human oversight was missing at critical points.
The lesson for regulation is not to resist technology. It is to be clear about accountability. AI can support decisions, but humans own the ultimate decision authority.
A framework built from practice, not theory
Serving as Vice-Chair of the CLEAR AI Workgroup has been a genuine privilege. It has given me the opportunity to learn from regulators and policy leaders across jurisdictions and internationally who are all grappling with the same reality: AI is arriving faster than most governance frameworks were designed to handle.
And yet, across very different systems and professions, a consistent theme emerges. The challenge is not the technology itself but rather it is the governance structure surrounding it.
That shared experience shaped the CLEAR Principles for Ethical and Effective AI in Professional Regulation. At their core are three commitments that any regulator will recognize as fundamental to their mission:
- Professional competence – AI must be used within the bounds of human expertise, and always in a way that allows professionals to interpret, challenge, and override its outputs.
- Human-centered ethics – Decisions that affect licensure, rights, or professional practice require meaningful human involvement and oversight.
- Trust through governance – Systems must be transparent, auditable, secure, and grounded in clear accountability.
These principles are not abstract. They are designed to work in real regulatory environments with real constraints—different board sizes, staffing levels, and statutory responsibilities—but a shared obligation to the public.
Efficiency only matters if it strengthens oversight
In practice, this is where the conversation becomes most tangible.
Regulatory workloads are growing. Applications, renewals, continuing education requirements, and interstate mobility all continue to increase in volume and complexity. At the same time, resources rarely scale at the same pace. That gap is where technology can make a meaningful difference.
At Propelus through our CE Broker solution, that’s exactly the problem we are focused on solving—building tools that take on the repetitive, rules-based administrative work without taking over decision-making.
CE Broker automates the tracking, verification, and auditing of continuing education requirements, applying each board’s rules consistently so standards do not vary from reviewer to reviewer. It also flags anomalies in submitted documentation to surface potential irregularities that warrant closer attention, and helps guide licensees toward board-approved courses so compliance is built into the process rather than discovered at audit.
What matters most is what happens next. Every record remains transparent, auditable, and subject to human review. The system can identify patterns and surface risk, but it does not make determinations. The technology does the organizing; the regulator does the judging.
That distinction is not semantic—it is foundational.
Human-in-the-Loop is not a feature. It is the model.
Responsible AI in regulation is not about replacing work. It is about rebalancing it.
When used well, AI reduces the time spent on repetitive administrative tasks and increases the time available for professional judgment. It helps regulators focus attention where it is most needed—on the cases that require deeper review, interpretation, and expertise.
But no matter how capable these systems become, one principle has to hold: AI may inform decisions, but it should never make them.
Recommendations, flags, risk scores, and compliance outputs are inputs—not outcomes. They should always remain subject to meaningful human review, professional judgment, and clear accountability.
The final decision must rest with the individuals entrusted by statute, and by the public, to make it.
The future of professional regulation will be defined by judgment, not technology
The boards and agencies that succeed in this next era will not simply be those that adopt AI fastest. They will be those that adopt it most thoughtfully.
They will invest in governance alongside innovation. They will build clear oversight structures. They will prioritize transparency, accountability, and explainability from the start and not as an afterthought. Most importantly, they will stay grounded in what has always defined good regulation: public trust.
Technology will continue to evolve. That is inevitable. But the responsibility of professional regulators has not changed. It remains what it has always been: protect the public, uphold standards, ensure fairness, and exercise judgment on behalf of the communities they serve.