Question and Reccomendation

russellporter1

So I was looking at this AI review set of indexing with #2 of 20.

https://www.familysearch.org/en/records/improve/tasks?action=EnhanceImageRecords&language=en&placeCode=339&placeName=New%20York&task=Name%20Correction&autoGenImageArk=3%3A1%3A33SQ-GP7L-D12

I had also seen many like this where when it prompts you to review and edit the AI's work on the indexing. When you get these there are many problems when you get them because they put wrong stuff together. They put lines together as names that aren't on the same line. Sometimes they put words preceding a name with name, or the reverse also.

For this reason I want to SUGGEST STRONGLY, they need have these reviewed for SPACING FIRST before they go to people reviewing them. Doing it any other way slows down the work because the reviewer has to skip them because it confuses everyone. The result is people will all be skipping the ones that are garbled up because they got confused.

Also, I'd seen some comments of some people here helping people. And they seem to have this idea that we're assisting the AI. And that's fine but… the AI shouldn't be in charge. It should still be people because, if we have the AI in charge then 10 years from now or whatever, with more passing time it will change how people interpret names. And that will harm the ability to work on these.

The AI should be trained to the human mindset, not the humans trained to downgrade to the AI's status. If its like that then someday our grandkids will have serial numbers in their birth certificates in place of names. Training us to change thinking to the AI is wrong headed. Its creating weird rules. Like those of us who have indexed and reviewed for more than a decade we remember that it used to be a given that if we saw Wm, we all knew it was William. And so we'd put William. But under these new rules you can see where us being taught we're below the AI and that the AI is in charge could create situations where we can't say its William or put William even when we know with certainty that it is.

It also seems to be harming the work and the community that the programmers or…whoever sets this up doesn't see the community as part of the team. This means they don't see our feedback, or look for feedback. And that's ignoring years and years of work, for someone to decide a policy who has less experience with family history than the people who are doing the work; that will create problems.

I hope someone will send this up the chain.

Ashlee C.

@russellporter1 Thank you for your feedback. I will let the engineers know of your concerns.