Based on how I see acad libraries are trying to work with Gen Ai/LLM I can see some likely failure states. This is me wildly speculating and being pessimistic + usual qualifiers, im not an expert, academic libraries arent uniform block etc (1) 1. Chatbots, now everyone and their brother can easily make a chatbot using RAG type technology, on surface it looks miles better than older tech. But difficulty lies in EVALUATING (even with gold standards eval of long form answers is tough) many will be pushed and fail (2)

I've noticed a pattern that whenever a new class of discovery tool emerges, often it is the "expert" that finds it hardest to appreciate what is going on. There are many reasons (1) First the obvious. They are experts so they are hard to impress as they can use existing discovery tools to a very high level of performance. Typically these new tools initially work very well for non experts allowing them to boost their performance. (2)

Information literacy for mortals this basically answered a question I was wondering about the role of IL recently. (1/) projectinfolit.org/pubs/provocati… Essentially i was looking at this tweet that dissed librarians for teaching information literacy and handing fake news and yet failing to distinguish some false piece of info. I didn't personally retweet that but it got me thinking (2)

lazyweb does anyone have a good set of readings/lecture on the state of predatory journals? how much should we worry etc. Assume the audience sort of knows the concept but isn't really into scholarly comms day in and out. e.g. liason librarians journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mB… went through all my tweets in the past with the word "predatory". Wow, quite a few things in there. I think I am still quite confused.

[Read] A tipping point for open citation data direct.mit.edu/qss/article/do… - this answers one of the questions i have been wondering about % of open citations... cos the figure seems to be around 90% but....(1/) "Checking Crossref api .. indicates that 88% reference-containing documents are open.. However, this accounting overestimates .. as many print-only articles precede widespread indexing in Crossref, or publishers have not yet supplied reference info for digital articles that" (2/

[Read] Microsoft Academic Graph: When experts are not enough - mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.11… - A great read, answers a lot of things I was wondering about. Also a lot less technical than the earlier paper on MAG frontiersin.org/articles/10.33… Firstly, there is a lot of skepticism on DOIs, ORCIDs. "URIs are not designed with human factors in mind, such that their low usability and common typographical errors in DOIs and ORCIDs have frequently been a source of frustration and an adoption barrier"