An Optimist’s View of AI (But Still Asking Questions)
By BiblioJo and ChatGPT
This week, I joined Western’s Generative AI Challenge as a self-declared AI Optimist. That doesn’t mean I think AI is flawless—or that I’m handing over my thinking cap to a machine. What it does mean is that I’m excited about the possibilities AI opens up for creativity, research, and learning. I like to experiment with tools. I like to see how they work. And I really like it when they help me skip the grunt work and get to the fun, human, interesting stuff.
AI as a Timesaver, Not a Takeover
I’m not looking for AI to do my creative thinking for me. I like creative thinking. But when it can speed up the mundane—clean up citations, tidy formatting, summarize a long text—it frees me to focus on exploration and innovation. It’s like having a very enthusiastic assistant who’s always game to take a first stab, even if I end up rewriting most of it.
For example, I’ve used AI tools to:
- Find online tools for Mark Down
- Summarize a complex research policy, to hlep me understand it
- Play with branching storylines in Twine games
- Generate metadata from images for family history projects
None of these tasks replaced my judgment or voice—but they gave me a head start, or saved me hours of tedious work.
Still, I Want to Be Thoughtful
Optimism doesn’t mean ignoring the pitfalls. I think it’s important to understand why people are concerned about generative AI. Not necessarily to change my mind—but to make sure I’m not missing something. Some of the issues I’m digging into include:
- Deskilling: Will over-reliance on AI erode foundational skills—especially for students or new professionals?
- Cognitive offloading: Am I using AI to spark ideas or to avoid thinking deeply?
- Bias and inclusion: Whose voices and experiences are reflected in the data behind these models?
- Surveillance and data ethics: What happens to my inputs? Who sees what I feed in?
- Environmental impact: What’s the carbon cost of constant prompting and processing?
I don’t think any of these questions cancel out the benefits. But they do help me stay grounded, and they remind me that these tools aren’t neutral—they reflect the choices and values of the people who build and use them.
What’s Next?
As this challenge unfolds, I want to keep doing what I do best: playing with new tools, asking good questions, and staying curious. I want to make the most of what AI can offer without losing the joy of doing the thinking myself. I want to keep exploring how these tools can help us as educators, librarians, researchers—and humans—without letting the tech define the terms.
I’m optimistic. But I’m also listening.
Further reading: