Becky Yoose
@yo_bj@glammr.us  ·  activity timestamp 4 days ago

I feel seen by this paragraph.

So, so seen.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/968497

(text in alt text)

#libraries #ai

(citations removed to fit character limit) This article makes the case that, first, this embrace of generative AI, reticent or otherwise, is dissonant to the field's institutional ideals of supporting the public good, wishing to provide access to information that has integrity, and abiding by sustainable practices whenever possible. Second, what is unfortunately not dissonant is the field's quick rationalization that technological solutions are ethical, simply because they illusively meet the immediate needs of staff and community members. I argue that this rationalization happens because library and information science (LIS) practitioners consider technology, their labor, and its interaction to be neutral and in so doing separate themselves from generative AI's material conditions. Third, the utilization of generative AI signals a shift in the responsibility of facilitating ethical labor practices in LIS, operating at some degree for the public good, onto privatized technological solutions that are constantly changing and fetishized. Technology cannot fully substitute the labor of a worker, no matter how much or how quickly we want our field-wide problems of precarity and burnout to be solved. Further, the technology of many public institutions in the United States is generally a decade behind private industry capacity. The reality is that our work has always intersected with technology, and this intersection has material, social, and cultural impacts.
(citations removed to fit character limit) This article makes the case that, first, this embrace of generative AI, reticent or otherwise, is dissonant to the field's institutional ideals of supporting the public good, wishing to provide access to information that has integrity, and abiding by sustainable practices whenever possible. Second, what is unfortunately not dissonant is the field's quick rationalization that technological solutions are ethical, simply because they illusively meet the immediate needs of staff and community members. I argue that this rationalization happens because library and information science (LIS) practitioners consider technology, their labor, and its interaction to be neutral and in so doing separate themselves from generative AI's material conditions. Third, the utilization of generative AI signals a shift in the responsibility of facilitating ethical labor practices in LIS, operating at some degree for the public good, onto privatized technological solutions that are constantly changing and fetishized. Technology cannot fully substitute the labor of a worker, no matter how much or how quickly we want our field-wide problems of precarity and burnout to be solved. Further, the technology of many public institutions in the United States is generally a decade behind private industry capacity. The reality is that our work has always intersected with technology, and this intersection has material, social, and cultural impacts.
(citations removed to fit character limit) This article makes the case that, first, this embrace of generative AI, reticent or otherwise, is dissonant to the field's institutional ideals of supporting the public good, wishing to provide access to information that has integrity, and abiding by sustainable practices whenever possible. Second, what is unfortunately not dissonant is the field's quick rationalization that technological solutions are ethical, simply because they illusively meet the immediate needs of staff and community members. I argue that this rationalization happens because library and information science (LIS) practitioners consider technology, their labor, and its interaction to be neutral and in so doing separate themselves from generative AI's material conditions. Third, the utilization of generative AI signals a shift in the responsibility of facilitating ethical labor practices in LIS, operating at some degree for the public good, onto privatized technological solutions that are constantly changing and fetishized. Technology cannot fully substitute the labor of a worker, no matter how much or how quickly we want our field-wide problems of precarity and burnout to be solved. Further, the technology of many public institutions in the United States is generally a decade behind private industry capacity. The reality is that our work has always intersected with technology, and this intersection has material, social, and cultural impacts.