There’s been a lot of talk about AI for the last few years, but discussions about generative AI have become ubiquitous since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in late 2022. Librarians have a long history of being worried that computers are going to take away our jobs, so perhaps I was mentally prepared when countless articles in publications like Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan began churning out articles discussing the widespread concern that AI is going to eliminate everyone’s jobs. I know generative AI can now adequately summarize written content using natural-sounding language, and in a fraction of the time it takes a human. This can be scary, but I don’t think it has to be. Right now generative AI can’t do what I do in my job, but maybe it can help me to do it better.
Something meaningful
I really enjoyed Tom Johnson’s blog post “What I learned in using AI for planning and prioritization: Content strategy might be safe from automation” because he discusses the worries about being replaced by AI and but is also looking at ways it can help writers. I think this is the right approach. He discusses how he tried to use AI to help prioritize his tasks and how it didn’t quite work – there were just too many variables to weigh. This is a task that requires complex thought and good judgment, something that AI is not quite ready to do. However, he admits that there are time-consuming tasks that AI will probably be able to do for tech writers – like writing, for example. Is this bad? Johnson concludes that this will free technical writers to become content strategists who the complex analysis and decision making AI isn’t capable of.
Librarians had to do something similar when their catalogs, collections, and databases moved to the internet. We used to have to do literature searches on special terminals that cost a fee for each search, look through indexes to find article citations, and help patrons find books in the card catalog when they were searching by subject (because that wasn’t easy to do). Now, every library patron with their own computer and an internet connection can access these resources, which are now designed with non-librarian end-users in mind. Rather than spending time directly connecting each user to the book or article they want, librarians select resources, make them accessible, and help patrons learn how to conduct research in the library, among other things. In short, we are spending less time on routine activities and more time on strategic ones that require professional knowledge and experience. I’m hopeful that advances in generative AI will help technical writers do the same for their organization’s content.
Something delightful
As I start planning my strategic roadmap, I’ve found Val Swisher’s and Dr. Kim’s discussions incredibly helpful, especially regarding content maturity models – a concept that is completely new to me. I’m now looking forward to applying these models to our content projects at work and determining what our next steps should be in light of our maturity. However, going back to topic of the AI, I was delighted to hear Val declare that “people do not want to talk to a computer.” As Val also notes, people do like self-service, and for knowledge bases or chatbots to work, real-life humans are still required to make sure that useful and current content is available.
kristen palmiere 
Leave a comment