National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#2This is one of those articles that informs you more about how random people whose opinions you probably wouldn't care about feel about a thing than the thing itself. In this case it's just a fun way to dress up fud juxtaposed with marketing. The employees they're interviewing might be 100% right, the spokesperson for the project could be 100% right but the article does nothing to substantiate any of it. I'm no more informed than before I read it.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#3This is one of those articles that informs you more about how random people whose opinions you probably wouldn't care about feel about a thing than the thing itself. In this case it's just a fun way to dress up fud juxtaposed with marketing. The employees they're interviewing might be 100% right, the spokesperson for the project could be 100% right but the article does nothing to substantiate any of it. I'm no more i…
It wasn't just me then. Once it got to the point where the author was just quoting the employees repeatedly, I started to suspect there wouldn't be a real point drawn. I suppose you'll walk away with however you felt coming into the article: this is either a really cool or a really terrible thing.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#4> “Why is the Generative AI calling itself an ‘expert archivist?’” an employee asked. “It’s called ‘expert archivist’ because that is the prompt we gave it,” someone involved with the demo said.
> “I have a serious problem with the ‘expert archivist’ title,” another employee said.
> “Same here. If we have a disclaimer saying the generative AI can make things up and yet call it an expert archivist on the same tier as actual human experts…,” another chimed in.
You know, it's possible to write an article and filter out the useless complaints instead of throwing anything that supports your point at it. It's a system prompt for heaven's sake.
It's not terrible, but over half of the article being employees complaining about it is certainly a choice.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#5> “Why is the Generative AI calling itself an ‘expert archivist?’” an employee asked. “It’s called ‘expert archivist’ because that is the prompt we gave it,” someone involved with the demo said. > “I have a serious problem with the ‘expert archivist’ title,” another employee said. > “Same here. If we have a disclaimer saying the generative AI can make things up and yet call it an expert archivist on the same tier as…
Their point is why would would anyone involved in this presentation choose to dub this AI an "expert". They're addressing the overall dishonesty in labeling it as anything other than what it is. They rightfully do not want users interacting with an AI that sports a label that misinforms them about what they're talking to.
And that is a very valid concern. One of the chief issues with all of these chat bots is that they speak like humans with unearned authority. The output is presented with an air of knowledge that it simply does not have because it can't truly "know" anything.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#6My partner is an archivist, they attend these sorts of conferences, and we've talked about this frequently. Archivists are at best apprehensive about AI, especially shoddily implemented versions like will almost certainly be the case here.
Accuracy is everything, and the way information in the archive is presented to visitors/researchers is paramount. Anything that moves that discussion around that presentation away from human beings into the realm of artificially generated pablum is going to be met with resistance.
Think of it like how /r/askhistorians on Reddit would rather let a question go unanswered for hours so a professional can provide a proper, sourced answer, than let some random user chime in with anything. That's putting an emphasis on accuracy and providing a completeness, rather than a rapid one.
>At the current rate, it will take until 2046 to completely transcribe this series with just humans!,” Lagundo’s presentation says. She said that an AI transcript of the dataset was 90 percent correct and that it intends to share these transcripts with the public in its official catalog in November or December.
What's the rush? Why would we settle on 90% accuracy today when we could do it right and get 100%? It's not like this is mission critical information. It's an archive. Take the time and do it right.
Moreover, why is this so important that we need to burn the energy from AI to do it?
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#7> “Why is the Generative AI calling itself an ‘expert archivist?’” an employee asked. “It’s called ‘expert archivist’ because that is the prompt we gave it,” someone involved with the demo said. > “I have a serious problem with the ‘expert archivist’ title,” another employee said. > “Same here. If we have a disclaimer saying the generative AI can make things up and yet call it an expert archivist on the same tier as…
An AI prompted to say it's an archivist might not have the same legal weight as one saying it's a doctor or can identify toxic mushrooms, but the organization suffers by bringing in tech which doesn't help the employees - especially when a big part of their job is finding reliable, cite-able sources of information.
I'm reading a book by a papyrus expert (Stolen Fragments) and I was surprised by how they frame it as safeguarding history first, and the community accepting or rejecting lines of work based on that. If you're an archivist you are aware that AI is part of the future, but also you're planning to still be an archivist at the institution and want to shape what that looks like.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#8> “Why is the Generative AI calling itself an ‘expert archivist?’” an employee asked. “It’s called ‘expert archivist’ because that is the prompt we gave it,” someone involved with the demo said. > “I have a serious problem with the ‘expert archivist’ title,” another employee said. > “Same here. If we have a disclaimer saying the generative AI can make things up and yet call it an expert archivist on the same tier as…
Their point is why would would anyone involved in this presentation choose to dub this AI an "expert". They're addressing the overall dishonesty in labeling it as anything other than what it is. They rightfully do not want users interacting with an AI that sports a label that misinforms them about what they're talking to. And that is a very valid concern. One of the chief issues with all of these chat bots is that th…
Nobody is calling it an expert. It's a system prompt to make it perform better. This kind of deliberate misinformation it implicitly promotes with the employee quotes is exactly what I'm talking about.
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#9> “Why is the Generative AI calling itself an ‘expert archivist?’” an employee asked. “It’s called ‘expert archivist’ because that is the prompt we gave it,” someone involved with the demo said. > “I have a serious problem with the ‘expert archivist’ title,” another employee said. > “Same here. If we have a disclaimer saying the generative AI can make things up and yet call it an expert archivist on the same tier as…
Why are employees complaint useless? And why shouldn't news articles mention complaints?
Re: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees
#10This is one of those articles that informs you more about how random people whose opinions you probably wouldn't care about feel about a thing than the thing itself. In this case it's just a fun way to dress up fud juxtaposed with marketing. The employees they're interviewing might be 100% right, the spokesperson for the project could be 100% right but the article does nothing to substantiate any of it. I'm no more i…
Totally. Rare fail for 404. Really weird piece. Mostly informationless.