The freaking gall to put these sessions back to back…
I’m at my library’s Staff Development Day, this is in the itinerary. I should speak up during it, but hopefully I won’t be the only one though.
The freaking gall to put these sessions back to back…
I’m at my library’s Staff Development Day, this is in the itinerary. I should speak up during it, but hopefully I won’t be the only one though.
They’re not ignoring it. They want to fight it. Because AI is not a better search algorithm, its surrendering structure and relationships to an unauditable black box process.
Rather than democratizing information management you are intermediating an untrustworthy, hallucinating, spaghetti pile of code between humans and our corpus of knowledge. That’s why.
Isn’t the right answer to learn mastery over these tools instead of surrendering or trying to hold back the tide?
There is no mastery. There is no version of this tech that allows it to work at the level we expect information retrieval to be. It will always hallucinate, it will always be more computationally expensive than what we had before, and it will always have been built upon stolen information and media. Morally and practically it is inexcusable.
You can learn how the enemy works without taking them out to dinner.
Surely you should learn their tactics?
I don’t see how sticking your head in the sand does anything. Luddites had legitimate grievances, but today 99% of weaving is automated.
This is a mischaracterization of the position. I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am questioning the value proposition of the technology. I use it for some things, and will not touch it for others.
You got it
The point is not the retrieval, but the understanding of the information structure. The same way that the point of math problems is not the answer, but understanding the process. There is no advancement in learning by having something sitting next to you spitting out answers.