The Librarian as a Trusted (Human) Assistant
Claude is described as “the trusted assistant for you to do your best work.” Other generative AI tools use similar language that humanizes systems and emphasize the trustworthiness of tools. The marketing of trust is creating issues with users who trust the conversational outputs of these systems over the experience and knowledge of human librarians. Recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published a notice concerning AI-generated archival references. The notice stated, in part, “We are aware that some AI chatbots (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Bard and others) may generate incorrect or fabricated archival references. These systems do not conduct research, verify sources, or cross-check information.” Notably, the notice states “If a reference cannot be found, this does not mean that the ICRC is withholding information;” which seems to suggest that some ICRC Library patrons might trust AI chatbots more than human librarians. A Scientific America article discussing the ICRC’s notice, highlights the difficulties AI models create for researchers and librarians. False sources create more work for librarians who spend more time trying to find non-existent sources. Sarah Falls, of the Library of Virginia, states “it is much harder to prove that a unique record doesn’t exist.” Librarians, already spending more time on trying to find non-existent sources, must also contend with a patron possibly trusting the AI model’s answer over the human librarian.