|
Top-level
 @oblomov @chrisamaphone I wonder, though, will we ever get to see the armies of poorly paid humans who label the sources that the algorithms are trained on? Even in the libraries and archives and museums, cataloguers and palaeographers are so often kept invisible. I suppose that it doesn't help their cause that so many of them prefer it this way. I fear that the public doesn't see that actual work is needed, and that that work takes intelligence and creativity that no LLM has. 3 comments
@oblomov @chrisamaphone I'd like that to happen, too. Though I have worried for a long, long time that libraries and librarians, and museums and curators, and archives and archivists, work ever harder to make that work invisible. Does the AI-generated stuff need to get markedly worse to trigger a realisation, do you think? I mean, do we need to get people disappointed in contrast to being impressed?  If library science were invented today by a billionaire and marketed like an LLM, a "chat with someone who knows" button would appear on every web site. (And the billionaire make a cut on every knowledge worker salary.) But then again, what interest would a billionaire have to start hyping up well-funded and well-founded knowledge? He wouldn't really be able to capture the market, because these pesky humans might just teach *each other* library science 😱. |
Gregory's Server
@libroraptor I read @chrisamaphone's message in a different way, that LLM may lead people to re-evaluate library sciences *by contrast*, rather than by becoming the interface through which people see it.