End of the librarian? Council cuts and new tech push profession to the brink(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
End of the librarian? Council cuts and new tech push profession to the brink
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/07/librarians-council-cuts-and-new-tech-public-libraries
47 comments
Yes, even the "best" modern web search tools still don't come close to human curated subject headings. Library science survived the blockchain fads, hopefully it will remain resilient to the AI hucksters who already think google is just as good as an academic database, having never actually used one.
And the modern web search tools don't even try to be good at searching, but some engagement-bullshit-here-is-something-that-might-interest-you contraption.
I love listening to bootlegs (recording of a concert that is not official, mostly done by fans). I happen to be a fan of a band that has quite dedicated fan base and tons of bootlegs. I remember, and I'm quite sure of it, that I could type "<BAND> <SONG> <YEAR> live" in youtube search and get pages upon pages of exactly that. Recording of the song by the band, in given year.
Today if I type "tool right in two live" I get:
actually what I requested - 12
official audio - 1
cover song - 4
other song by the band - 12
full concert - 4
"reaction" video - 4
And after that there are mostly "reaction" videos, yea, just what I wanted. Try it out, it's actually funny (and sad).
I love listening to bootlegs (recording of a concert that is not official, mostly done by fans). I happen to be a fan of a band that has quite dedicated fan base and tons of bootlegs. I remember, and I'm quite sure of it, that I could type "<BAND> <SONG> <YEAR> live" in youtube search and get pages upon pages of exactly that. Recording of the song by the band, in given year.
Today if I type "tool right in two live" I get:
actually what I requested - 12
official audio - 1
cover song - 4
other song by the band - 12
full concert - 4
"reaction" video - 4
And after that there are mostly "reaction" videos, yea, just what I wanted. Try it out, it's actually funny (and sad).
Nearly a 1/3 success rate for the first page of results? Honestly, I thought things were worse.
Yes, I thought I just wanted to chill and listen to a song, but actually cutting-edge AI technology decided that I will have a better time listening to this car mechanic over-reacting to my favorite song, that he surely hears for the first time in his life.
Not to mention that our AI-overlords coming out swinging, with a billion of dollars research behind, couldn't figure out that if I'm looking for a live recording of a song, then maybe, just maybe, I actually know those other songs too and could search those if I wanted to. Let's give them a few years to go back to search results they had a few years ago.
Not to mention that our AI-overlords coming out swinging, with a billion of dollars research behind, couldn't figure out that if I'm looking for a live recording of a song, then maybe, just maybe, I actually know those other songs too and could search those if I wanted to. Let's give them a few years to go back to search results they had a few years ago.
[deleted]
Curation is hard and only getting harder with the sheer amount of content produced every year. AI/ML (whatever you want to call it) should be a tool to help librarians sift through the amount of content they need curate, but not think of it as a replacement for a human.
I see libraries as very useful and like to hang around books. A few times I had to ask for a librarian's help with research I was blown away by the speed and quality of the response. For example I needed a list of FM transmitters in Europe above certain power and after failing to create one via a bunch of national registries asked for help -- and got exactly what I needed in a few hours.
That said, let me be the devil's advocate. I see two key functions for librarians: research and access to unusual media, like microfiche. For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country.
Microfilm or microfiche can (and probably should) be digitized and served out of the central location anyway. When someone was using the readers every week in a library it made sense to keep them everywhere. But now the use plummeted and machines (at least in some libraries) are always broken. We should scan those films and support a more modern access to the archives. My 2c.
That said, let me be the devil's advocate. I see two key functions for librarians: research and access to unusual media, like microfiche. For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country.
Microfilm or microfiche can (and probably should) be digitized and served out of the central location anyway. When someone was using the readers every week in a library it made sense to keep them everywhere. But now the use plummeted and machines (at least in some libraries) are always broken. We should scan those films and support a more modern access to the archives. My 2c.
A big part of libraries and librarians is knowing their local community. Think about helping local adults learn to read or local authors publish a book. But also being local helps them curate a catalog that is informed by the community. If I walk into a library in city A, it is more likely to have books about city A on hand. This is much harder to do at a national level. IMO, the hyper local nature is also one of the big differentiators for the library to avoid being usurped by something like Amazon.
> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country.
Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall across time and industries.
The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. Oh, if we put them in a central location we can make 80% of them redundant. Ha! Librarians don't currently spend most of the day idle and somebody has to do the work they currently do regardless of where they're located. Meanwhile putting people in a central location generally makes things less efficient because now they're in a different location than the patrons and you've added communications overhead and, in the common case, a layer of middle management.
The second problem is that knowledge is local. When a patron comes in and wants to know about historical buildings in the library's city, or local regulations, or community events, the local librarian knows where to find the information because that's where they are. The librarian 100+ miles away may not, because they're most familiar with where to find their locality's information rather than some far away place.
The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. This is the sort of "laboratories of democracy" or "competitive markets are better than monopolies" effect. When everything is under one roof it becomes bureaucratic, resulting in ossification and resistance to change. Including changes that improve efficiency or outcomes. Whereas independent systems can each try a different thing and find out what works best in parallel, then look at how the others did and adopt their way of doing it if it seems better. Centralization efforts stamp that benefit out, and its long-term effect is cumulative because the benefits of the alternative accrete over time. This ultimately eats any nominal efficiency gains from the limited amount of legitimate redundancies that could be achieved through centralization.
The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. Having multiple copies of information stored at multiple independently-operated facilities has high resilience. Centralized systems have systemic risk, and the best known way to mitigate that risk is to redecentralize the system to remove the monoculture.
In general if someone proposes to centralize a decentralized system to "improve efficiency" you should suspect them of malice, because the most steadfast proponents of centralization are generally adversaries who want to monopolize the system or adversaries who want to corral the system all into one place so they can more easily butcher it.
Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall across time and industries.
The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. Oh, if we put them in a central location we can make 80% of them redundant. Ha! Librarians don't currently spend most of the day idle and somebody has to do the work they currently do regardless of where they're located. Meanwhile putting people in a central location generally makes things less efficient because now they're in a different location than the patrons and you've added communications overhead and, in the common case, a layer of middle management.
The second problem is that knowledge is local. When a patron comes in and wants to know about historical buildings in the library's city, or local regulations, or community events, the local librarian knows where to find the information because that's where they are. The librarian 100+ miles away may not, because they're most familiar with where to find their locality's information rather than some far away place.
The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. This is the sort of "laboratories of democracy" or "competitive markets are better than monopolies" effect. When everything is under one roof it becomes bureaucratic, resulting in ossification and resistance to change. Including changes that improve efficiency or outcomes. Whereas independent systems can each try a different thing and find out what works best in parallel, then look at how the others did and adopt their way of doing it if it seems better. Centralization efforts stamp that benefit out, and its long-term effect is cumulative because the benefits of the alternative accrete over time. This ultimately eats any nominal efficiency gains from the limited amount of legitimate redundancies that could be achieved through centralization.
The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. Having multiple copies of information stored at multiple independently-operated facilities has high resilience. Centralized systems have systemic risk, and the best known way to mitigate that risk is to redecentralize the system to remove the monoculture.
In general if someone proposes to centralize a decentralized system to "improve efficiency" you should suspect them of malice, because the most steadfast proponents of centralization are generally adversaries who want to monopolize the system or adversaries who want to corral the system all into one place so they can more easily butcher it.
>> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library.
> Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall [fail?] across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. ... The second problem is that knowledge is local. ... The third problem is that diversity is advantageous.
Those are good general points. My main counter-argument is that they would trump the desire for change if we had a well working system. We do not. The current system is failing (and the article contains strong indication of this) and needs restructuring to avoid extinction. There are different ways to try it but all require honest, public discussions on what we want to have and how much we are willing to pay.
> The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure.
All else being equal, yes. But today's local library archives are often a mess that no one really cares about. Paper, microfilm and microfiche are vulnerable to the elements. I have seen a leak take out a local archive. A local volunteer can box records and move them to a home as a last resort, but there are fewer and fewer of such people around. At this point there is no excuse not to scan those archives and store a local backup, a cloud backup and a few more backups for good measure, too.
> Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall [fail?] across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. ... The second problem is that knowledge is local. ... The third problem is that diversity is advantageous.
Those are good general points. My main counter-argument is that they would trump the desire for change if we had a well working system. We do not. The current system is failing (and the article contains strong indication of this) and needs restructuring to avoid extinction. There are different ways to try it but all require honest, public discussions on what we want to have and how much we are willing to pay.
> The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure.
All else being equal, yes. But today's local library archives are often a mess that no one really cares about. Paper, microfilm and microfiche are vulnerable to the elements. I have seen a leak take out a local archive. A local volunteer can box records and move them to a home as a last resort, but there are fewer and fewer of such people around. At this point there is no excuse not to scan those archives and store a local backup, a cloud backup and a few more backups for good measure, too.
The article is in error. The staff behind the counter are normally library assistants and very rarely librarians.
True. Though as a regular reader...well, more like skimmer, of The Guardian - that level of fluff is SOP for them. You can (at best) guess whether they're omitting important background and details from a story to simplify it, or to fit their desired editorial tone, or out of ignorance.
My local library service in England has had the "Open Access" scheme in place since before the pandemic.
I don't think there have been any major problems with it.
You need to go through an induction course on things like fire safety, then you use your library card and PIN to enter the building out of staffed hours.
It's very convenient to be able to go at any time from approx 08:00 to 19:30 every day.
The "tailgating" problem is a little overblown - you're encouraged not to let others in, but they know that you can't do anything to stop it, and they don't expect you to put yourself in any danger.
There are still staffed hours throughout the week, and these work on a sort of rotation so that a neighbouring library will likely be open if your local one is unstaffed.
https://beta.southglos.gov.uk/open-access/
I don't think there have been any major problems with it.
You need to go through an induction course on things like fire safety, then you use your library card and PIN to enter the building out of staffed hours.
It's very convenient to be able to go at any time from approx 08:00 to 19:30 every day.
The "tailgating" problem is a little overblown - you're encouraged not to let others in, but they know that you can't do anything to stop it, and they don't expect you to put yourself in any danger.
There are still staffed hours throughout the week, and these work on a sort of rotation so that a neighbouring library will likely be open if your local one is unstaffed.
https://beta.southglos.gov.uk/open-access/
When I was a kid, the public library in my small town in America was always unlocked during off hours. It was just assumed that nobody would abuse it.
Meanwhile Sweden and Finland are investing in their public libraries and these actually look cook
The UK government prefers to capitalize the money that could have been spent on public services into ever higher house prices.
That's probably why they just had a landslide election to overturn the old order.
Also, as an outsider, UK housing prices outside of London are actually quite affordable. With the current strength of the dollar a lot of very nice places in the UK are at price parity with Arkansas/Mississippi.
Also, as an outsider, UK housing prices outside of London are actually quite affordable. With the current strength of the dollar a lot of very nice places in the UK are at price parity with Arkansas/Mississippi.
If the Wikipedia lists are correct and up to date, Arkansas ($52,528) and Mississippi ($48,716) have significantly higher incomes than the UK ($40,800 PPP, but that's including London).
I don't know what prices you see for houses in those states, but do also be aware that UK houses are generally on the small side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
I don't know what prices you see for houses in those states, but do also be aware that UK houses are generally on the small side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
I've seen renovated 9 bed 5 bath country estates from the 18th/19th century on 20 acres for the same price as 10 year old 6 bed 4 bath McMansions on 2-3 acres.
That sounds like 10-20 million in the UK; mostly listings stop at 5 bed.
Nice if you can afford it, but most people can't.
Nice if you can afford it, but most people can't.
I've seen that stuff for <5 actually. Still outside affordability for most I understand, but not quite so stratospheric.
It wasn't really a landslide though.
The winners only received ~1.5٪ more votes than their previous "disastrous" result.
The gains were largely due to the incumbent Tory votes being split by Reform, an extremely anti-immigration populist party.
> as an outsider, UK housing prices outside of London are actually quite affordable.
Much like Arkansas/Mississipi, both opportunity and salary are much lower than high CoL areas like London/California.
Both rent and house prices in the UK have far outstripped our comparable neighbours and are causing real issues for people.
New build housing is energy efficient but of poor quality and extremely expensive, often furnished with unusably small rooms.
The winners only received ~1.5٪ more votes than their previous "disastrous" result.
The gains were largely due to the incumbent Tory votes being split by Reform, an extremely anti-immigration populist party.
> as an outsider, UK housing prices outside of London are actually quite affordable.
Much like Arkansas/Mississipi, both opportunity and salary are much lower than high CoL areas like London/California.
Both rent and house prices in the UK have far outstripped our comparable neighbours and are causing real issues for people.
New build housing is energy efficient but of poor quality and extremely expensive, often furnished with unusably small rooms.
A lot of Americans are going to cheap parts of the south because of the flexibility of work, but with global warming I think the English countryside is going to be nicer, and the locals are more open and quant in my opinion than their Arkansas/Mississippi counterparts.
Labour were in power for an unrelenting increase in house prices from 1997 to 2007.
Nothing like putting the economy in the dumpster to lower housing prices
I'm sure the scores of homeless and temporarily housed are filled with joy about a booming economy
"I know you don't want to move from London to Hartlepool but take solace in the fact the economy is up half a percent"
"I know you don't want to move from London to Hartlepool but take solace in the fact the economy is up half a percent"
[deleted]
Realistically how much money are they even saving trying to cut librarians? They couldn't trim the fat somewhere else in the budget? Seems like a waste of time and money to try and "automate" this when they can find the funding elsewhere
For a bit of context, "Nearly one in 10 English councils expect to go bust in next year"[0]. Which means they're forced to make brutal cuts across all services. It's not necessarily that they don't like librarians.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/28/nearly-one-i...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/28/nearly-one-i...
> Officials in some local authorities are proposing that libraries can be operated at times without any professional librarians, relying on self-service technology, smartcards for entry and CCTV.
Like Amazon's "Go" self-service stores, which are working out so well for them?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/amazon-ends-ai-power...
Like Amazon's "Go" self-service stores, which are working out so well for them?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/amazon-ends-ai-power...
> Officials in some local authorities are proposing that libraries can be operated at times without any professional librarians, relying on self-service technology, smartcards for entry and CCTV.
But none of the jobs of self-service technology, smartcards for entry and CCTV are currently done by librarians.
But none of the jobs of self-service technology, smartcards for entry and CCTV are currently done by librarians.
[deleted]
My local library inherited the staff from other libraries that closed well over ten years ago. This means they have a constant staff of circa 5 people, meanwhile they do no real outreach into the community nor are they friendly, and I am fairly certain they get fewer than 10 people through their doors each day. I believe that libraries are an essential public resource, but I don't think it’s productive to have resources that are essentially beyond scrutiny as that in turn leads to a very poor service.
Libraries end up being fairly local, so local leadership matters. There are some amazing library systems in the US, and some that are terrible like you describe.
There are two kind of issues here: one is the preservation of human information fully knowing that sparse books are hard to change/destroy, while digital information on centralized sources is terribly easy to change, and we all know the power of information, so the interests of some to temper it for a large variety of reasons; the other one is the need of a sustainable economics. In certain period of prosperity even low output activities might be tenable, in a deep crisis they tend to be untenable.
libraries need to be looked at from a human perspective because looked at from a business perspective libraries are purely cost centers.
Libraries are huge net wins for society. If they were just meeting spaces with free computer/internet access that'd be enough to justify their existence as a service to low income individuals and the community. They're so much more though - they're a nexus for events, classes and social activism while housing a useful cache of culture. Even if the internet has all the information and more, the library offers curation and an honest perspective which the internet sorely needs.
All the hallmarks of a poorly thought out proposal. With the decision made purely on assumed cost savings, which the article gives several clear examples of those being highly unlikely to realised.
> Library users with smartcards will be monitored by CCTV to ensure people do not “tailgate” into the buildings.
Seriously? How do they think a camera can prevent tailgating?
Seriously? How do they think a camera can prevent tailgating?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Total COVID-19 expenditures in the UK were £310 billion to £410 billion according to official figures. While BoJo was partying during lockdowns.
The same BoJo was very enthusiastic about financing wars and torpedoing peace agreements.
But financing open access libraries? Hell, no! People might start to think on their own.
The same BoJo was very enthusiastic about financing wars and torpedoing peace agreements.
But financing open access libraries? Hell, no! People might start to think on their own.
Johnson resigned as PM after it was clear the party was going to change its own rules to make it possible to have another vote of no-confidence in him, then again as an MP after being told he was being investigated for misleading the Commons, and his party lost the election just a few days ago.
Johnson not in charge of what these libraries are facing, the damage he caused is too distant — blame Sunak for not reversing those things if blame is more important to you than repairing the situation, but for the latter the ball is in Labour's court.
Johnson not in charge of what these libraries are facing, the damage he caused is too distant — blame Sunak for not reversing those things if blame is more important to you than repairing the situation, but for the latter the ball is in Labour's court.
Same system, different actors. Johnson just exposed what was going on behind the scenes. Of course Sunak is similar in policies. So is Keir Starmer at least w.r.t. foreign policy.
Maybe he'll fix the library situation for positive PR, it doesn't cost much.
Maybe he'll fix the library situation for positive PR, it doesn't cost much.
Libraries aren't foreign policy.
And Johnson didn't "just" expose what was going on behind the scenes, the point I was demonstrating is that he was so bad he was forced out of office even by the very party that itself was removed from office for being bad.
If you want to argue that the UK electoral system is bad, I'd agree — yet your claim is neither evidence of that nor is it related to this story.
And Johnson didn't "just" expose what was going on behind the scenes, the point I was demonstrating is that he was so bad he was forced out of office even by the very party that itself was removed from office for being bad.
If you want to argue that the UK electoral system is bad, I'd agree — yet your claim is neither evidence of that nor is it related to this story.
I can see how automation features like self checkout could replace some of the pages and clerks, but not the librarians. If for instance a journalist or historian (or anyone as it's a public service!) is doing research for their work, and needs to access the microfilms of old documents, the librarian is there to assist, and their function is invaluable - their existence is an investment by our society in increasing the accessibility and accuracy of facts. It seems like we need more people performing that function in the modern day, not less.