This is one of the most current questions I am asked, and the honest answer is yes, but not where most people are pointing it. The instinct is to use AI to write the board narrative. That is exactly the wrong place to start.
A board report has two jobs. It has to be true, and it has to be clear. AI is genuinely good at the second job and quietly dangerous on the first. It will turn a thin set of facts into fluent, confident prose, and fluency reads as certainty. A polished paragraph over a shaky foundation is more dangerous than a clumsy one, because it lowers everyone's guard.
Where it earns its place is underneath the narrative, not on top of it. Pulling together data from several delivery tools, flagging where this month's numbers contradict last month's, spotting the workstream whose commentary has stayed suspiciously green while its dates keep slipping. That is pattern work, and it is useful precisely because it surfaces the uncomfortable questions a human author might smooth over.
The line I hold is simple. AI can assemble and challenge the picture. A named human still owns the picture. The person presenting to the board has to be able to stand behind every number without pointing at a tool, because the board is not buying a document. They are buying someone's judgement.
There is also a governance point that sits above all of this. If AI touches reporting, that has to be visible and agreed, not quietly adopted by whoever is keenest. A board is entitled to know how the report in front of them was produced, the same way they would expect to know who audited a number.
Used with that discipline, AI can make reporting more honest, because it is harder to hide a contradiction when something is actively looking for one. Used without it, it just makes a uncomfortable story easier to tell. The technology is not the deciding factor. The discipline around it is.