Invited Response to "Artificial Intelligence in Rhinoplasty: Precision or Over-Reliance?"

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into surgical practice demands critical reflection-not only on its capabilities, but also on its appropriate role. We appreciate De Bernardis et al. for raising essential concerns about the limits of AI in operative planning, particularly in contexts where human judgment, healing trajectories, and esthetic discernment defy algorithmic modeling. Rather than viewing these limitations as grounds for rejection, we argue that they clarify where AI truly belongs: not in replacing surgical expertise, but in reinforcing the systems that support it. When applied thoughtfully, AI can reduce cognitive burden, streamline repetitive tasks, and extend access to reliable, patient-centered information. Its value lies in augmentation, not replication. Yet this potential must be grounded in ethical design, where accountability, representational fairness, and data security are not add-ons, but foundational principles. The future of AI in rhinoplasty is not a binary of precision versus over-reliance. It is a challenge of integration: how to embed AI into the surgical ecosystem in ways that elevate care, protect patients, and preserve what is uniquely human in medicine.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .