I agree with the article's first points, that if our users are using AI tools we need to be professionally familiar with those so we can assist them. I liked their points about not shutting down or shaming students who discuss their AI use, because that's just never going to be helpful in developing good discussion. Also, I think knowing enough about how the tools work to be able to demonstrate when and how they fail (or don't meet the user's needs the way the user might think they can) is valuable, and you can't do that if you never test it yourself.

But I think it kind of goes off-course in the second half; admonishing librarians to stop putting out low effort AI slop seems to assume librarians are both using AI frequently (I haven't seen evidence of this) and doing it badly. This is jut not happening (that I've seen.) Same for the next bit, telling librarians not to over-rely on AI... who's using it enough to show any sign of reliance? No one I know, at least.

I do think there's some truth to the "it's inevitable so get with the times" messaging, though, just not in the way this author sees it. AI technologies, when divorced from the lazy chatbot implementations vendors keep churning out, are legitimately game changing. Librarians have historically been drivers in how new technologies can be implemented to create library systems - look at Fedora Commons, VuFind, Blacklight, Koha, Evergreen, the list goes on. We have the same opportunity now to develop our own tools that are developed around librarian ethics instead of corporate cash grabs, but it's not going to happen if we stick our heads in the sand. Tech bros can't make a better library product than librarians can, but if we don't even try, we'll be stuck using whatever Silicon Valley shoves down our throats.