alright I've got to do some quick math to explain attitudes towards AI to my boss.
we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)
please rb for larger sample size!
Question 1/3
What is your age, and do you feel AI is a net positive or net negative in our lives today?
under 18, AI is a net positive
under 18, AI is a net negative
18-29, AI is a net positive
18-29, AI is a net negative
30-45, AI is a net positive
30-45, AI is a net negative
46-60, AI is a net positive
46-60, AI is a net negative
over 60, AI is a net postive
over 60, AI is a net negative
Question 2/3
How often do you visit or interact with museums/archives (whether in person or online)?
Frequently (multiple times per month)
Often (multiple times per year)
Occasionally (a couple times per year)
Rarely (once every couple of years)
Never :(
Question 3/3
If you saw a museum was using AI in exhibits, marketing, research, etc., would you be more or less inclined to visit that museum?
under 18, more inclined
under 18, less inclined
18-29, more inclined
18-29, less inclined
30-45, more inclined
30-45, less inclined
46-60, more inclined
46-60, less inclined
over 60, more inclined
over 60, less inclined
Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!
🫶
Hi OP! I have a friend who works in the heritage sector and thought you might find this useful. The place they work was having an exhibit on Experiences of a Certain Demographic Group in a Certain Period of History (vague to avoid doxxing) but instead of using human written copy from archival examples of real humans, the company they hired to build the exhibit used AI copy derived from archival examples.
What it did was make it impersonal, inaccurate, and unacademic. The voices and stories of the people weren't real so they didn't relate directly to the materials on exhibit, nor were they fictionally derived from a specifically curated amalgam and the experiences ended up a mismatch of class and racial norms for the time so a human copy editor had to fix it for a sum that far exceeded the original budget.
It cost them a lot of money but it also cost them audience attention and the "yes and" factor because stewards working the exhibit couldn't easily relate the work back to the artefacts they displayed (as the LLM had no ability to do this) and the public couldn't on their own initiative look up more about a person.
The friend in question is really pissed because the heritage sector is not all that well funded and he works for an organisation that is well known for its positive approach to rural life and natural preservation. And then the higher ups dumped more than he earns in a year into an initiative that funded environmentally disastrous data-centres, left skilled copy-writers out of a job, and alienated visitors. It was Bad.
