Stephens notes that “libraries are uniquely positioned to explore and integrate tech innovations with intention and heart” (n.d.). As previously mentioned, tech is moving rapidly and improving every day. I cannot say that I know the intricacies of AI, but if it can be customized to align with customer satisfaction, can it eventually be formulated into a tool for the library to reflect its overall mission and values? Currently, ChatGPT is not very transparent about how it “finds” its answers or from where it pulls its information sources. Transparency is key here, so this is where it becomes more of an obstacle than an asset. Libraries need to assess AI as technology with possibilities never considered before while also recognizing its limitations and the appropriate way to use it. I feel as if companies and businesses are quite giddy with using AI bots in every situation, especially online customer service. People are smart enough to recognize when there is no human touch involved and are already dismissive of an AI product as subpar.
The authors are correct in arguing that instead of simply accepting that AI is here to stay, we bear a responsibility in having a say in where it belongs in our lives and to what extent. We also have an obligation to ourselves and one another to question information from unknown sources and authority figures and demand accountability. This is how libraries stay relevant; libraries and librarians are still highly trusted as reliable sources of information; however, competing with AI is not the answer. Using AI as a “low level task” or learning tool is an accurate assessment of its best uses as well as the need to educate people about its limitations and being able to spot its irregularities (Jackson, 2023). This may seem overly optimistic, but reaching students early and teaching them of their potential to produce work in their unique voice in comparison to a soulless product can be empowering.
AI cannot replace humans unless we remain passive and complacent and let it. Critical thinking, learning, curiosity, and engaging in questions that might not have the most definitive or resolute answers elevates our humanity, forming creativity and resourcefulness where we might least expect it.
References
Fister, B. & Head, A.J. (2023, May 04). ChatGPT is reshaping information infrastructures. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/05/04/chatgpt-reshaping-information-infrastructures-opinion
Jackson, J. H. (2023, February 14). Chatting with ChatGPT: Deep dive in five with Tom Moriarity. SJSU Newscenter. Retrieved from https://blogs.sjsu.edu/newsroom/2023/chatting-with-chat-gpt-deep-dive-in-five-with-tom-moriarty/
Stephens, M. (n.d.) Module 9: New horizons [Lecture]. The Hyperlinked Library. Retrieved from https://287.hyperlib.sjsu.edu/module-9-new-horizons/
@yoli I appreciate how you connected the Wikipedia panic to today’s anxieties around AI. I agree that people often jump straight to the extreme scenarios instead of looking at the real, nuanced impacts, both the risks and the possibilities. I also love your optimism about empowering students to find their own voice. Your ending statement that “AI cannot replace humans unless we remain passive and complacent and let it,” totally resonates.