STOP USING AI
"AI is a thief, plain and simple. To put it in simple terms, it would be like having a job you're really good at and you're told you have to feed everything you do into a machine. Once it has learned everything, you will be fired and the machine will do your job at almost no cost., because it's far cheaper to have something brainless spit out junk."
Ai has been stealing people's work, people's art. It does NOT produce good research--I can literally show you paper evidence on my family tree of things that will NOT come up on a search because the computer doesn't know more than a person. If you "train ai" you are training yourself out of a job.
I am currently in school at BYUI to become a genealogist and do graphic design....while watching everyone---including ward members and family search---cheer for ai which essentially puts me, and others, out of work and makes all that education utterly useless. So what are all the out of work people supposed to do? Why have a degree in anything if the ai is going to take my job?
Duolingo has already decided to fire humans and use ai only. Let that sink in. You really think this is a good thing?????
Answers
-
Hi Melinda This is an interesting argument and one that has echoed around the world for centuries. Your basic argument is that we shouldn't use new inventions which affect or replace people's jobs. The list of inventions fitting this criterion is long, if fact includes virtually every invention ever made. Just to mention a few and some of the jobs impacted.
1- Computers - how many typewriter manufacturers are left to employee typewriter assemblers and technicians.
2- Automobiles - how many people are employed to make buggy whips today.
3- Farm Machinery - Today I can operate a modern combine which replaces several laborers and cuts time dramatically.
4-Light Bulb - How many lamp lighters do you know.
Well, the list could go on forever. Inventions are judged by their usefulness. Those that prove useful are embraced and adopted. Those that fail to be useful are discarded. You are suggesting that we judge an invention by its impact on people's training and jobs. My question to you is what inventions you want to get rid of based on their impact to people's training and jobs. Do you want to go back to 1800, 1600, or the stone age.
What have we learned from history about the impact of inventions relative to people's training and jobs. Invaribly, new inventions open new opportunities for jobs in different areas for those willing to transition.
AI is relatively new, but the momentum is great. I am sure AI will continue to be developed and refined. The challenge is how we mold AI to be as useful as possible in aiding our progression. In terms of Family Search, AI is replacing some of the drudgery of endless hours of research. But the challenge has always been, what do we do with the answers and data we find. Over the years, genealogy research has changed dramatically with the advent of computers, microfilm, etc.. I, for one, do not want to go back to genealogy research prior to the days of computers. But the question is always, what do we do with the answers and data we can now find easier. The same thing applies to AI. What do we do with the answers and data.
3 -
I agree with @Wayland K Adams, and am also finding it difficult to see that genealogy is likely to cease to be a meaningful career in the foreseeable future.
It's a bit like web design. When the bits and bytes were all people focused on, before people started providing layers of software to do the boring bits, the web designer's relationship with their customer was often just about having a tick in the box (got a website! yay!) Now, a lot of it is about helping the customer to market and sell their offerings effectively online, which needs a lot of business understanding and communication; and this has driven new and interesting careers for humans (data science, digital marketing).
The more people know is possible, they more they need specialists to help them take advantage of what's available to them. More and more people are interested in family history research; when they get stuck, they will need help, and there's your opportunity.
(Sorry, accidentally signed in using my 'RootsMagic FS account' - should be @MandyShaw1.)
2 -
I'm sure AI is already proving of great use in indexing many, if not most, collections of records. However, as is being clearly illustrated, I don't think the time is ready to entrust all work to AI. In which case, FamilySearch has probably acted rather prematurely in removing its indexing projects from human volunteers at this point in time.
AI has certainly developed far quicker than I could possibly have envisaged, but clearly is not quite there to deal with some types of material that still need to be indexed by human hands.
7 -
AI needs to be used to support, not replace, the human intellect.
I recently received a LONG AI-generated reason statement for merging two profiles on another collaborative tree. Unfortunately, the contributor who requested the AI statement failed to notice that the two profiles were father and son, with very different lifespans. All the flowery statements don't hide the facts, but could mislead the unaware.
5 -
I'd say your first sentence summarised the situation perfectly. I am not sure that FS has got that balance right at all yet, as I think is also @Paul W 's point.
3 -
AI is literally already stealing the work of writers and artists. Duolingo is already replacing humans with AI. AI is advertising to replace designers, secretaries. I guess if it's not your work being stolen and your job on the line you don't care.
0 -
If I had a buggy-horse raising ranch, should I scream at everyone that builds or drives automobiles for making my work disappear? I could, I suppose, but why would they be obliged to obey me?
1 -
There have definitely been reports of AI providers using unauthorised content to feed their models, but a fast developing technology is always going to attract chancers (the obvious example being 19th century railways).
This links to a couple of relevant stories but presents a different view: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/06/mining-of-authors-work-is-nothing-new-ai-is-just-doing-what-creative-humans-do
On the jobs/economics aspect, I found this an interesting read:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment
0
