When I read an IME report with a line declaring "no AI has been used in the preparation of this report", I've often wondered whether there was something going on that I didn't know about.
My best guess is that it started as a way of claiming the purity of the report, back when AI hallucinations were common and nobody quite trusted what these tools produced. Fair enough at the time.
But things have moved on. We're now well educated in treating anything AI produces as a first draft, something to be checked thoroughly before it goes anywhere near a final report. And most of the psychologists I talk to say AI actually helps them improve the quality of their writing, and sharpens how they test their inferences and opinions.
So it was good to get some clarity from WorkCover WA this week. Their position on AI use by practitioners in the WA scheme is:
"WorkCover WA recognises industry professionals are increasingly using AI to reduce administrative burden, improve efficiency and support service delivery. However, all decisions and professional judgement remain the responsibility of the individual practitioner, and WorkCover WA will continue to monitor the use of AI to ensure decision-making remains lawful, transparent, accountable and consistent with legislative obligations."
That sums it up for me. The question isn't whether you used AI. It's whether the opinions are yours, and whether you can stand behind every line.
This is the principle I've built Virtuosa AI around, so I'm hardly neutral. But I think the statement is worth sharing in its own right, especially for anyone who's been quietly wondering whether they're allowed to use these tools at all.