Tootfinder

I've expanded a bit on my reflections about #inaturalist's push for using LLMs to regurgitate user-generated insights - and why replacing human peer-to-peer learning is likely harmful to people's motivations.
Read it here: #citizenscience

Looks like #inaturalist has released an update on their misguided "AI" efforts: Beyond their preliminary results being underwhelming they don't seem to really have learned from the criticism they got.
"People at the Center", "Openness with Care" etc. are all empty words if the results are preordained with zero control by their "community". Their "environmental impact assessment" is also disingenuous, counting their prompt-fondling but not the training…
#citizenscience

Thinking a bit more about the #iNaturalist thing: imho, it also speaks to a certain disconnect or misunderstanding of why people continue to volunteer.
Most people absolutely initially come to any form of volunteering for an organization's mission, but: People come for the mission but they STAY for the community.
People care for the mission & if an org goes against it, there'll be backlash. But even plans that reasonably foster an org's mission will fail if they go against the community.

I found this reflection of one community member in the forum interesting: «Every time I read that AI is better, faster etc. it lowers my motivation to identify. It makes me feel that what I do when identifying (mostly unknowns) is not going to be useful any longer.»
My take is that this development is par for the course once organizations "professionalize" — and thus start to focus more on keeping their staff salaries than on their mission & working with their volunteer community…
#inaturalist