Cyborgs and Centaurs, Prophets and Priests: Anywhere Left for Curators?
by Chris Rosser Michael Hanegan
/April 17, 2024
Last September, AI expert Ethan Mollick observed that at the “jagged frontier” of AI adoption, two broad categories tend to characterize users: “cyborgs” or “centaurs.” He says,
Centaur work has a clear line between person and machine, like the clear line between the human torso and horse body of the mythical centaur. Centaurs have a strategic division of labor, switching between AI and human tasks, allocating responsibilities based on the strengths and capabilities of each entity. . . . [C]entaurs would do the work they were strongest at themselves, and then hand off tasks inside the jagged frontier to the AI. On the other hand, Cyborgs blend machine and person, integrating the two deeply. Cyborgs don’t just delegate tasks; they intertwine their efforts with AI, moving back and forth over the jagged frontier. Bits of tasks get handed to the AI, such as initiating a sentence for the AI to complete, so that Cyborgs find themselves working in tandem with the AI (Mollick, “Centaurs,” 2023, Centaurs and Cyborgs section).
Mollick’s descriptions resonate with all of us who have made efforts to learn tools and infuse our librarianship with AI. To his interesting analogies, we would add another important user group: the informed yet resistant, those whose orientation to AI is openness regarding learning and literacy but who are hesitant or suspicious regarding adoption and integration. To continue the alliterative “c” theme, we might consider such a person a “curator.”
Unlike the centaur or cyborg, the curator carefully selects and curates the use of AI. They understand the limitations and potential pitfalls of AI and consciously decide when and how to incorporate tools, but they do not fully embrace or delegate to the technology and are careful about how they recommend AI use to others.
The curator’s role is distinct from cyborgs and centaurs in that they take a more cautious and selective approach to AI adoption. The curator is invested in becoming AI-literate but approaches generative AI technologies with a degree of restraint. While cyborgs fully integrate AI into their work and centaurs strategically divide tasks between humans and machines, curators carefully evaluate AI tools and choose to incorporate them only when they believe it will enhance work without compromising human expertise and judgment. Curators are not opposed to AI but are discerning in their use. They focus on leveraging AI to augment human skills while maintaining the human touch.
Mollick assures that “Cyborgs and Centaurs are important–they allow humans to work with AI to produce more varied, more correct, and better results than either humans or AI can do alone” (Mollick, “Centaurs,” 2023, Dancing on the Jagged Frontier section). We also assert the importance of curators, whose careful, thoughtful, and strategic approach to incorporating AI resonates with librarians and information professionals. Curators are uniquely positioned to understand the nuances and implications of AI while maintaining a balanced, controlled integration that preserves human agency and expertise.
Yet the blinding speed at which things now move is the norm for AI. The pace of development is breathtaking; disruption and change provoke profound resistance in some and evoke techno-optimism in others. As the authors of a recent article put it, one position “views Generative AI as a form of Ragnarök, bringing about the destruction of the education system,” while the other position “sees it as a reformation, bringing a new dawn of accessible information and automation to enhance the footprint and quality of education” (Lim, et al., 2023, p. 3). Centaurs and cyborgs may portend Ragnarök or reformation, but librarians as curators are uniquely positioned to lead the integration and discourse of these technologies among our institutions.
The speed at which advances in AI are moving and the profound disruption these emerging technologies will continue to have in education and society at large are difficult to overstate. Proficiency in AI literacy is becoming a crucial competency for the future of human work and learning. There’s a lot to think about as we strategically plan how to invest, how to level up, and how to prepare our people for the future that is upon us. Is AI Ragnarök or does it signal a reformation? Is AI an apocalypse? Certainly, in the old sense of the term, which means to reveal, AI is apocalyptic: this disruption reveals our capacity to prepare ourselves, our students, our communities, our institutions, and our people for what’s coming. Analogies abound, but we offer two more, two energies that might simultaneously inhabit librarian-curators who guide the incorporation of AI. In this apocalypse, let’s think about prophets and priests.
Priests maintain, build, govern, and protect the status quo; priestly work is essential because it keeps a community tethered to what has come before, to identity and tradition, to mission, and to here-and-now needs. Prophets work at the fringes of the status quo; they point to what’s to come and invite others to join them in attending to new horizons, to imagine new futures and new possibilities. The centripetal force of priestly modes and the centrifugal force of prophetic modes reflect a crucial tension that must be maintained as we navigate this AI apocalypse. By identifying leaders who can help push us forward and leaders who will help pull us back and keep us tethered, we can find a via media, a middle way, through this moment of incredible disruption and profound change. Both of these roles should be considered AI leaders, and both roles require AI literacy. But it can be empowering for some to hear that their feelings of suspicion of or resistance to AI are not a weakness but a necessary strength—even so, those who will meaningfully participate in resistance must also be AI literate. All must level up. And to those early adopters, whether cyborgs or centaurs, who are ready to share the newest tools or tips with students and colleagues, remaining tethered to the less optimistic provides the necessary tension required for forward movement.
Curators carefully maintain the suspension of the inward pull and the outward push that is the source of so much tension surrounding AI adoption. By embodying both prophetic and priestly energies, curators can help their institutions find synergy between innovation and tradition. They can push forward with AI adoption where it makes sense while also staying tethered to the enduring values and mission of our libraries. This dual perspective allows curators to approach AI with both openness and discernment, embracing change while preserving what matters most.
As curators, librarians play a vital role in guiding others through the complexities of the AI landscape and fostering a culture of AI literacy within their institutions. The profound disruption these technologies introduce into educational and societal structures necessitates a balanced, synergistic approach—one that curators are uniquely positioned to provide. By understanding both the promise and the challenges of AI, curators help navigate the profound changes AI brings, prompting us to consider whether these advances signal a technological upheaval or a transformative reformation of human work and learning.
Curators also help their institutions develop balanced policies and guidelines for AI adoption. They work with stakeholders to identify areas where AI can genuinely enhance teaching, learning, and research while also establishing safeguards to protect privacy, intellectual property, and academic integrity. By their measured approach to AI adoption, curators can help their institutions navigate the AI apocalypse without succumbing to either uncritical hype or blanket rejection.
We believe synergy—in this case, the creative alchemy of prophetic and priestly energies—will characterize librarians’ difficult work as curators at the center of AI integration. For us, synergy is better than balance; balance teeters on the precipice of a binary, but synergy incorporates the dynamo of push and pull. Synergistic modes move us away from simple binaries for making decisions about AI—*Is it good or not, cheating or not, useful or not?—*which is why we recommend five foundational values that can inform practice, use cases, implementation, integration, and experimentation. Our five values are:
Transparency. In the context of AI tools, transparency refers to the extent to which a platform makes its methodologies, algorithms, and data sources clear to its users. This includes providing detailed information on how the AI generates its results, the limitations of its algorithms, and any biases that might be present in the data. Transparency also encompasses the tool’s capacity to facilitate the easy sharing of a user’s work with others, such as enabling students to share their findings or processes with instructors, thereby reducing suspicions of academic dishonesty and promoting an open academic environment. This aspect of transparency enhances trust, allowing users to understand not just the “what” and “how” of their results, but also to confidently communicate their work process and findings to others. For researchers and students, understanding these aspects is crucial for trusting and effectively leveraging the tool in their work.
Curiosity. When applied to AI tools, curiosity reflects the tool’s ability to inspire users to explore new questions, ideas, and data. It involves the tool’s capacity to provide surprising insights, generate novel questions, or uncover hidden connections that prompt further investigation. This value emphasizes the tool’s role in fostering a spirit of discovery and innovation among its users.
Rigor. Rigor in AI tools pertains to the accuracy, reliability, and scholarly validity of the information and results provided by the tool. This means the tool uses validated methodologies and robust data sets and provides results that can be replicated and verified. Rigor ensures that the tool meets academic standards and can be confidently used in research and scholarly work.
Inclusion. Inclusion relates to the AI tool’s accessibility and usability across a diverse range of users, including those with varying levels of expertise, from different disciplines, and with different abilities. It also refers to how well the tool represents and serves a diverse set of needs and perspectives, minimizing biases and ensuring equitable access to information and resources.
Play. Play involves the extent to which an AI tool is designed to be engaging, intuitive, and potentially even fun to use. This value recognizes the importance of user experience in encouraging learning and exploration. An AI tool that embodies the value of play is one that users find motivating and enjoyable, which can enhance learning and creativity. Beyond mere usability, Play encapsulates the tool’s ability to facilitate desire-driven learning and serendipitous discovery, allowing users to stumble upon unexpected insights that fuel further exploration and inquiry. This aspect of Play speaks to the tool’s design in fostering an environment where users are encouraged to explore driven by their interests and curiosity, leading to a more enriching and engaging experience. The joy and satisfaction derived from these interactions, including the enjoyment experienced through conversing with AI, are central to this value, making the tool not just a resource but a partner in the journey of discovery.
For an example of how these values guide thinking about AI tools, see this example evaluation of Scite and Elicit prepared for library leaders at Oklahoma State University.
Speaking of play, we invited Claude.ai (a Generative AI platform) to read our post and offer a conclusion. Here’s what Claude has to say about centaurs and cyborgs, prophets and priests, and the need for librarian curators. Claude suggests,
In the face of the AI apocalypse, librarians as curators stand at the center, balancing the prophetic pull of innovation with the priestly responsibility of preserving tradition. By embracing the values of transparency, curiosity, rigor, inclusion, and play, curators can guide their institutions through the complexities of AI adoption, ensuring that these powerful tools are used in ways that enhance rather than undermine the core mission of libraries. As we move forward into an uncertain future, the role of the curator has never been more critical. It is up to us, as librarians and information professionals, to take up this mantle and lead the way. We must become AI literate, engage critically with these technologies, and help others do the same. We must be both prophets and priests, pushing forward while staying grounded in our values. The path ahead may be challenging, but it is also filled with opportunity. By embracing our role as curators, we can shape the future of AI in libraries and beyond. We can ensure that these technologies are used in ways that promote knowledge, foster curiosity, and serve the needs of our communities. So let us rise to the challenge, armed with the values that have always guided our profession, and lead the way into the AI-powered future.
In his recent book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, Mollick concludes with a compelling observation: “There is a sense of poetic irony in the fact that as we move toward a future characterized by greater technological sophistication, we find ourselves contemplating deeply human questions about identity, purpose, and connection” (Mollick, Co-Intelligence, 2024, p. 211). We know a community of theological librarians and librarians-as-curators who are well positioned and highly capacitated to help navigate this apocalypse, this time for revealing how we will level up our libraries to generatively integrate AI because of who we are as librarians.
We believe librarians should be at the very center, the beating heart, of developing AI literacy within and among our communities. Whether Ragnarök or reformation, AI is an apocalypse that will reveal our capacity to prepare our people for what’s next. It’s encouraging to realize that our role as curators is now more important and perhaps more interesting than ever before.
References
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), Article 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Mollick, E. (2024). Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. Portfolio/Penguin.
Mollick, E. (2023, September 16). Centaurs and Cyborgs on the Jagged Frontier. One Useful Thing. https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/centaurs-and-cyborgs-on-the-jagged
Enjoying the Atla Blog?
Subscribe to receive email alerts of new blog posts of a specific type. Members, subscribers, publishers, or anyone interested in the study of religion & theology are welcome to sign up to one or all alerts to keep up to date with the Atla community. If you or your institution are a member, the Atla Newsletter delivers a monthly curated email of top posts to your email inbox.