Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to positively impact library and archives collections and services—enhancing reference, instruction, metadata creation, recommendations, and more. However, AI also has ethical implications. This paper presents an extensive literature and review analysis that examines AI projects implemented in library and archives settings, asking the following research questions: RQ1: How is artificial intelligence being used in libraries and archives practice? RQ2: What ethical concerns are being identified and addressed during AI implementation in libraries and archives? The results of this literature review show that AI implementation is growing in libraries and archives and that practitioners are using AI for increasingly varied purposes. We found that AI implementation was most common in large, academic libraries. Materials used in AI projects usually involved digitized and born digital text and images, though materials also ranged to include web archives, electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), and maps. AI was most often used for metadata extraction and reference and research services. Just over half of the papers included in the literature review mentioned ethics or values related issues in their discussions of AI implementation in libraries and archives, and only one-third of all resources discussed ethical issues beyond technical issues of accuracy and human-in-the-loop. Case studies relating to AI in libraries and archives are on the rise, and we expect subsequent discussions of relevant ethics and values to follow suit, particularly growing in the areas of cost considerations, transparency, reliability, policy and guidelines, bias, social justice, user communities, privacy, consent, accessibility, and access. As AI comes into more common usage, it will benefit the library and archives professions to not only consider ethics when implementing local projects, but to publicly discuss these ethical considerations in shared documentation and publications.
Mannheimer et al. (Mon,) studied this question.