I introduced AI citations to my upper level students for an assignment working with historical photos in which I allowed them to use it as a think partner and translation aid.
I don’t mean to defend AI, but we need some way to cite it, right? Not for the truth value of the content, but to be able point to it in some way, the same way I could with, say, Twitter. Like if I’m researching racial bias in Generative AI, there has to be a way to point at it, academically.
We weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as any source material specifically because it could be manipulated, but robot manipulation is ok? I wonder if it’s because even peer-reviewed submitted papers/articles are possibly including AI as well as the reviewers for the actual review…
librarians aren’t endorsing AI. Their stance is if you’re going to cite stuff you have to info, you need to cite from where the info came.Librarians aren’t saying “we love ai generated ideas!” They’re saying “if this is not your own idea or research you have tell the reader where you found it.”
Yeah--I would never say this about my own institution, heavens no!, but--faculty add their voices to the pro-ai demands, leaving librarians with not much choice at all
I think on balance this is an overall good? I wish it had a more disappointed-cool-aunt tone, but if it implied the potential for negative consequences it might dissuade people from citing.
Ugh. You shouldn't cite AI for the same reason you shouldn't cite Wikipedia. They serve similar purposes - summarizing information, then providing their citations so you can make sure the citations are real and say what the summary claims. Then you cite the citations.
Comments
What if the new thing
just
sucks
At least this way the students are being told to label it...?
I think on balance this is an overall good? I wish it had a more disappointed-cool-aunt tone, but if it implied the potential for negative consequences it might dissuade people from citing.