Dr. Liz Hebbard

@lizhebbard.bsky.social

Medieval Occitan & French; vernacular lyric; music & text; history of the book; medieval book arts; binding fragmentology. PI of the Peripheral Manuscripts Project @peripheralmss.bsky.social 📜

Do you use digitized medieval manuscripts in any capacity? Do you have opinions about the metadata that describes them? We want to hear from you! Please take a moment to fill out our very short survey. Please repost and share with anyone you know who might be interested! forms.gle/sBPXAnoRhwe1...

Digitized Medieval Manuscripts: Metadata Preferences

A brief survey about what metadata formats people prefer to go along with their digitized medieval manuscripts. The results of this survey will be used to consider what metadata we make available thro...

forms.gle

For folks asking why bother commenting because the OMB won't care: comments help build cases for the courts by explicitly laying out harms. That's why it's really important to have your comments be as specific as possible. Also, contact your senators and reps! They actually do care about this.

Jacquelyn Gill@jacquelyngill.bsky.social · 4w ago

Monday is the deadline for public comment! The Heritage Foundation has been mobilizing its members to leave comments in favor of the rule change, so every unique comment matters (don’t use a form letter or copy/paste—similar comments are batched and treated as one).

Monday is the deadline for public comment! The Heritage Foundation has been mobilizing its members to leave comments in favor of the rule change, so every unique comment matters (don’t use a form letter or copy/paste—similar comments are batched and treated as one).

Bethany Brookshire@beebrookshire.bsky.social · 4w ago

There's an OMB rule change that would require political oversight of scientific grants, and could pull any that don't "reflect presidential priorities" Another country has tried this before! It was the USSR and it was called Lysenkoism. By @thsaey.bsky.social www.sciencenews.org/article/omb-...

Millions of copyrighted songs were fed to AI music generators - now there's proof Suno and rivals are being sued for $150k per song. A sum that would bankrupt these companies and set an important precedent.

Millions of Copyrighted Songs Were Fed to AI Music Generators – Now There's Proof

Millions of copyrighted songs trained AI music generators, and new searchable databases from The Atlantic now confirm which tracks were used.

gadgetreview.com

us, lightly touching a document: I just need to move you so I can make sure you're properly supported on this table the document, the pages enormous: you SHOVE document? you throw the vellum like a paper aeroplane? oh! oh! jail for archivist! jail for archivist for One Thousand Years!!!!

And it devalues the research process and in practice - given constantly accelerating cuts to the programs that produce the work genAI merely trains on - makes that process less accessible to people who might want to learn. It is anti-intellectual, and anti-democratic not despite but because of that.

The fact that anyone can get any amount of *content* on any subject does not make *research* or *knowledge* a whit more democratic. It devalues not *credentials* (which AI companies appropriate in their own advertizing!) but rather actual *work*: time in the field, in the archive, at the keyboard.

Above all, taking direct engagement with sources, with the process of building interpretations from them, and with the education of judgment and social interaction that involves, and replacing it with a corporate platform for entering prompts, makes research as a human activity much less accessible.

Nor is using people's work or selling products using their names, credentials, likenesses, etc. without their consent a blow to credentialism, any more than stealing their papers and diplomas would be. If you struggle to see them as people, try anthropomorphizing them as you do bots. Go from there.

Equating whatever GPT has trained on with knowledge in general excludes a lot of work that was not digitized in the first place. That's not a win for accessibility or democratization of knowledge. If anything, it privileges what was already most accessible, and excludes unique and marginal sources.

I'm sorry but if I criticize the promotion of genAl as a surrogate "research assistant" for sidelining non-digitized sources, and for making the process of creating knowledge from them more opaque, and you tell me that's just credentialism, I'm obliged to ask if you read and understood the criticism