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.
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.
Which just demonstrates the complete lack of respect for the domain they are trampling on.
We're talking about actual experts vs some bullshit AI salesman who probably don't know jack shit about the actual job of archiving.
> It's a system prompt for heaven's sake.
That's the whole point, they're archivists not some self proclaimed "pRoMpT EnGiNeErS" tech bros
> “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.