Supplemental Thoughts About the Podcast

This is a topic where there is a lot to say with only so much time to say it. Michael and I recognize it is early days, but we both see the potential the technology has for scenario planning, making massive reams of text into useable data, and the possibility of merging our understanding of the world today with how our text heavy zoning codes and plans articulate our futures. We also recognize the risk as we clearly identified in the links we provide in the show notes, and the papers we identified in the discussion. Pretty heavy hitting articles by Bloomberg identified how generative AI’s biases could exacerbate stereotypes, and even the conceptual problems of value lock for a profession whose mission to think about improving outcomes and confront tradeoffs as its relates to community futures.

There are already examples of planning applications of AI (generative or not) that give me pause. I think my key point for planners would be to think clearly about problem definitions and the analysis frame you might be inheriting when you are attempting to use prediction to approach problems in planning.

• Are you cementing the intellectual frames of the past through automation?

• Is the tool replacing critical thinking and good judgement?

• Is the data going into a model representative of your community?

• Who does a model benefit or harm in its application?

• What voices were in the room to define the “need” for AI to begin with?

• Do you have the data, process, and funding to evaluate this application in the future?

These and other questions related to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of generative AI are ones to consider carefully.