In Boyd’s prescient 2016 article, she describes the cognitive dissonance of seeing activists using technology to connect people while others employed that same technology for exploitative means.
“I stopped believing that technology alone could produce enlightenment.”
Libraries can do so much with technology and are often pioneers of change in bridging the digital divide. From large-scale projects such as serving as wireless nodes for the community network to everyday tasks such as assisting patrons with tech literacy, the potential for libraries to uplift their community are endless. Undoubtedly, the question of “Can libraries do this?” has enabled them to create hyperlinked communities.
In the same vein as the Silicon Valley giants, however, I think libraries are reaching the point where they need to ask “Should we do this?” – not as a question of balancing resources or maximizing efficiency, but as a question of what world libraries are trying to enable.
The elephant in the room is generative AI: we are all talking about it and almost every service has AI embedded as a tool. Generative AI could be used for almost any purpose, and many libraries have contributed to the hype by offering programs that show patrons how to use gen AI. The reason why this hot topic is still somehow the unaddressed elephant is that the discussion of its ethics is seemingly nonexistent in the library world. While individual libraries such as the University of Missouri are bringing up responsible AI usage and the environmental impacts of AI, the focus of many AI-related library offerings remains solely on its possibilities. However, I wonder if libraries should focus less on the limitless horizon of this resource and reorient ourselves to the digital divide we may inadvertently be perpetuating.
With its environmental cost (that the Global South will be fronting), tangible harm to creative industries, and potential to further the divide between labor and capital, AI should be less of a hot trend that libraries are adopting as the QR Code 2.0 and more of a serious conversation worth having. The crux of the issue is not AI in and of itself, but about who gets to have a say on how it is used. While I am still new to the library world, my hope is that libraries join in on the conversation and enable our patrons to do so as well.
References:
Acemoglu, D. & Johnson, S. (2023). Choosing AI’s Impact on the Future of Work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ai-impact-on-jobs-and-work
Boyd, D. (2016). What World Are We Building? Medium. https://medium.com/datasociety-points/what-world-are-we-building-9978495dd9ad
Jacobs, J. & Tasin, F. (2024). How the Global South May Pay the Cost of AI Development. Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF). https://www.omfif.org/2024/07/how-the-global-south-may-pay-the-cost-of-ai-development/
University of Missouri. (2025). Artificial Intelligence: Research, Writing, Teaching, & Ethics. https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/c.php?g=1448277&p=10766409
Walton, A.Z. (2024). Creative Workers Say Livelihoods Threatened by Generative AI. Computer Weekly. https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/The-threat-of-generative-AI-to-creative-work-and-workers
Williams, A. & Muller, C. (2021). Libraries Are Bridging the Digital Divide. Internet Society. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2021/03/libraries-are-bridging-the-digital-divide/
