Our perspective, guiding principles, and role in supporting responsible AI use

Background

This document was developed by the UNCW Library AI Task Force as a synthesis of perspectives gathered from UNCW library faculty and staff, as well as other higher education and academic library resources. Input was collected through a structured focus group in which participants responded to a series of prompts, covering topics including the library's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats around AI, as well as questions about the library's role, boundaries, and values. Task Force members also contributed their own perspectives directly. Claude (Anthropic's AI assistant) assisted in the synthesis and drafting process, with subsequent editing and review conducted by UNCW library staff and faculty.

Strengths

We believe the library brings genuine disciplinary depth to AI conversations — not just technical familiarity, but longstanding expertise in information literacy, copyright, algorithmic bias, data privacy, and ethics. We have been critically evaluating information systems for decades, and AI can be understood to be another information system. Our information literacy and fact-checking skills are also directly useful for identifying and correcting inaccurate AI outputs. We bring a thoughtful, reflective approach that is an asset in a landscape that often moves faster than it thinks.

Weaknesses

We recognize some real tensions in our current position. There is growing pressure on all library staff to be AI experts, which isn't realistic given how broad and fast-moving the topic is. We are also susceptible to the "shiny new technology" effect — the risk of adopting AI in ways that are time-consuming or unhelpful rather than genuinely useful. Our institutional processes move slowly while AI evolves rapidly, which means guidelines are often outdated before they are finalized. We are also skeptical of efficiency claims that don't account for the time required to verify AI outputs. We are also aware that we are not always seen by campus as a go-to resource for AI guidance — and that we risk a kind of vocational awe, feeling obligated to be experts rather than thoughtful, differentiated contributors.

Opportunities

We see opportunity to add value to our work through AI — in summarizing large document sets, answering quick technical questions, identifying patterns across sources, and making library information more accessible and digestible. More broadly, we believe the library is well-positioned to introduce a critical lens into campus AI conversations, and we want to claim that role. We also see a significant opportunity to extend our existing information literacy expertise into AI literacy. The skills we have long taught — evaluating sources, understanding how information is produced and shaped, recognizing bias, and thinking critically about systems — translate directly into the AI context. We are not starting from scratch; we are expanding a practice we already know well. We also see accessibility as a specific and concrete opportunity, using AI to make content more usable for people with disabilities.  This positions us to move beyond basic awareness of AI tools and toward deeper engagement with questions of how AI works, what it obscures, who it serves, and how to use it responsibly.  

Threats

We are attentive to a wide range of threats. We are concerned about student over-reliance on AI and the erosion of critical thinking and research skills. We take seriously the risks of misinformation, hallucination, and the flattening of diverse perspectives into the most "probably correct" answer. We are troubled by AI's significant environmental costs — energy, water, and resource consumption — and by the bias and Western-centric worldviews embedded in many AI tools. We also see economic threats, including job displacement and wealth concentration, as real and not abstract concerns.  

How the library should participate

We believe our role spans three areas:  

• literacy education: helping students and faculty understand and critically use AI
• campus advocacy: being part of institutional policy conversations
• vetting and curation: evaluating AI tools carefully before recommending them

Boundaries

We believe humans remain accountable for all AI-assisted decisions and outputs — and we will not treat AI as a substitute for human judgment, professional communication, or genuine intellectual work. We will not offer blanket acceptance of AI output without verification. We will be transparent about when and how we use AI in our own work, and we will take care to review any AI-generated content for copyright concerns before using or sharing it. And we do not intend to support AI tools whose primary purpose is replacing human workers rather than assisting them. We also recognize that individual staff members may have ethical objections to certain AI-related requests, and we believe that respect and understanding of these objections is crucial to an inclusive environment.

Supporting library staff

We believe library staff need shared resources, a community of practice for exchanging use cases and techniques, and professional development opportunities. We recognize that not all staff need to be equally expert in all areas of AI and will need different levels of engagement.

A balanced response to AI

We are committed to naming both the benefits and the dangers of AI honestly, and to helping our communities navigate from wherever they are. We recognize that messages about AI are often mixed — whether to encourage it or caution against it. We do not want to be either uncritically enthusiastic or reflexively dismissive. Our goal is to help people understand how AI actually works — including its real limitations — so they can make informed decisions about when and how to use it. We also recognize that the question "why do we need libraries when we have AI?" is already being asked, and we believe we need clear, confident language ready in response. A practical tool we can offer: asking students and patrons "tell me more about your process" as a way to open honest conversations about AI use.

Human-centered AI: We believe human agency and final discernment must be preserved, and that transparency in AI use is essential to maintaining trust. AI should supplement work, not replace it. We find particularly useful this framing: when the process matters, humans should do it; when only the product matters, AI may be a reasonable option. That distinction, we think, is a valuable guide for our own practice and for the guidance we offer to others. 

Find more information about AI.