Ethics, GenAI, and Library 2.0...+

Incorporating Lessons from Old and New Leaders

In my first meeting with one of my mentors at Idaho State University, he introduced to me the following instructional design maxim: “Do not use Technology for Technology’s sake…” As I have progressed in the library, archives, and instructional design fields, I have found implications of that statement all over the place. Mostly, these have to do with genAI tools (and so I will feature that discussion here, since that is the focus of this blog after all).

Similar Principle in Archivism

I am reminded of a similar quote by the noted archivist T.R. Schellenberg: “The use of modern gadgetry cannot supplant the use of proper techniques and principles.” Schellenberg wrote this sentence in “A Nationwide System of Controlling Historical Manuscripts in the United States,” in American Archivist in July 1965.

At the time, he was very concerned that archivists, particularly young ones new to the field, were using computers and electronic record-creators overmuch. They were too concerned with automating processes and not interested in actually recording archival information. This is a laborious process if you do it right, and the labor is necessary. Going through an archival collection gradually and looking at each series and subseries intently means that you will genuinely know the content of the collection. If you just sift through things, you will not know much about the collection and will therefore miss opportunities to share it with researchers.

In my work, I temper the urge to “MPLP” everything with my urge to devote more time than necessary to collection processing. I am somewhere in the middle, and I think that is a good place to be. The point is, I do use technology and “modern gadgetry,” but I use it according to the recommendations of best practices, and do not just use “MPLP” as a crutch to not do necessary work. I mostly use MPLP to justify not doing things that have crept in to elitist segments of the archiving field (removing every single staple, ordering every single item, etc.).

Matthew Noe vs. Library Journal

One of the most influential thought leaders in public librarianism, Matthew Noe, has many opinions and is not afraid to share them. I agree with him about 75 percent of the time, which I only note so that you know that I am not attacking him personally. I just thought that this post of his was indicative of going a bit too far the “technology-skeptical” route:

In my view, Matthew misses the point of ethics here. Ethics do not mean “only do things that have 100 percent value for every single person involved. There is no technology or system that does that. Ethics means controlling one’s own actions and use of technology so that they are not harming other people or allowing others to come to harm. (sounds a bit like Asimov’s three laws, doesn’t it?).

Ethics involves complicated questions and workflows. It means critically examining what technology one is using. It means changing one’s actions based on new knowledge. And, most importantly, it means seeking to use new technological developments, or warning against certain uses, related to potential harms.

On the Other Hand…

While I do not care for people who prefer to completely ignore technological innovations, I also urge against using it uncritically for any purpose under the sun. On the day I started writing this post, Sam Altman was credited as saying that (I paraphrase) children were asking ChatGPT instead of God what they should do regarding their life decisions. He may not be all to torn up about that, given that his intention is to create Artificial General Intelligence, a type of technological god.

My Efforts to Encourage Ethics in GenAI and Libraries

I have surprisingly been involved quite a bit in the realm of ethics in generative AI. I used to just be involved in the applications of AI in teaching and libraries. All of a sudden, I was being asked to edit and author a textbook for college students on “AI and Ethics in Higher Education.” I collaborated with people from all over the world, 24 academicians in total. It has a 4.25 rating on EdTechBooks.

Additionally, I have given two webinars in association with Library 2.0: “The Three Cs of Generative AI: Copyright, Citation, and Circumspection,” and “Research and AI.”

The first one is free. The second one is a paid webinar. I would be glad to present either of these presentations to your organization if you contact me at reed.hepler@gmail.com. I also have other ideas about more interesting and nuanced presentations regarding AI and ethics, including examining AI through the lens of science fiction works and their messages regarding technology.

Future Efforts

I actually was not going to plug this development, but the opportunity opened up and so I am going to take it. I am going to collaborate with Helen Rimmer, a previous librarian and archivist at the University of Westminster, to create Empower Library Skills, a digital system for offering professional development to librarians. Empower is designed to be sustainable, people-first, and scalable. Everyone, from trainers to administrators to participants, will have a reason to come back to the system after their first visit.

I am developing a course entitled “Creating a Practical Ethical AI Use Framework.” The idea is that if we:

1. discuss ethical issues,

2. discuss the impact of AI on library patrons,

3. acknowledge the steps we as librarians should take when integrating AI in our practice and making recommendations to patrons,

4. see how other materials

then we can create practical frameworks for using AI ethically in our specific contexts and responsibilities.

As always, this should be objective-driven!

Look forward to courses like this one, and others, from Empower Library Skills!
I can also be contracted to make Canvas courses for your workers or for patrons. The point is, there are many ways to learn about ethical use of genAI, and no reason for you to ignore the responsibility you have as a user.

I also created a framework that I personally use, that is modeled after Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. I wrote a post about it a few months ago:

Others’ Efforts

The first people I would look to for information about AI and ethics are my co-authors in the Introduction to AI and Ethics in Higher Ed. there are several others whose work is especially impressive and I highlight one below:

Dr. Jeanne Beatrix Law

has spent her last few years creating several frameworks regarding AI use and ethics. The first was the Rhet Shot Framework. The second is actually called the Ethics Wheel. I cannot find it for the life of me, but here is the Rhet Shot Framework

Coming Up

GenAI in PreExisting Services: How GenAI Effects Social Media

A New Description Of GenAI Tool Development and Use: Less Tech-y Jargon, More Salient Details

Practicing InfoLit Skills with Various Media... and the optimal cases and contexts for using each type of media.

Shall We Fall Down to the Stock of a Digital Tree? Religion and AI part 2