If I may add, I am personally being driven by two realities in my work. First, AI tools are still not as reliable as sources of accurate information and logic grounded in realities as all the hype would suggest these are. That is my reality in 2025-2026. If all that changes over time then I will revisit how to use AI, but not until then, just as in the 1970s we worried about the accuracy and relevance of children using handheld H-P calculators, etc. My second reality is that I ultimately and always am personally responsible for whatever I publish--not a publisher, not an editor, not another historian--but me. It is my ethical and moral responsibility to offer up my works, my thoughts, my best efforts adhering to the highest standards of scholarship that I can muster. So, no matter what tools I use, I as a human ultimately am responsible. If I were to invent a footnote, inject some hallucination nonsense purposefully into something I write, or even unknowingly, shame on me because these actions would be dishonest. My second reality is increasingly of concern to me as I slowly evolve my research and writing to topics that are not as monographically narrowly focused, moving toward more tacit knowledge topics where logic, facts, and boundaries with truth become increasingly fuzzy and perhaps less knowledgeable and describable. For such topics I have to eschew the use of AI for the foreseeable future and rely on my aging brain but absolutely current release of Microsoft Word to go about my work. I think the entire IEEE community is working through similar topics. Read recent issues of *Computer, Edge, *and *Spectrum*--as I do as part of the benefits of my expensive IEEE membership--and you will see that Troy is right (so far) about it not worth the cost of using such tools yet, but by implication, too, that we need to learn about this technology as it unfolds. Most of the history journals and book publishers I work with are also just now beginning to learn even how to spell AI. I consider our discussion as members of *Annals* about the subject ahead of those being held elsewhere and so I find it most interesting for which I thank all of you and Troy. Jim On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 3:46 AM Troy Astarte via Members < members@lists.sigcis.org> wrote:
Hi folks
The piece Brian mentions having written is B. Randell and B. Coghlan, "ChatGPT's Astonishing Fabrications About Percy Ludgate" in *IEEE Annals of the History of Computing*, vol. 45, no. 02, pp. 71-72, April-June 2023, doi: 10.1109/MAHC.2023.3272989. (it appears to be Open Access at the Xplore link https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10148832).
Personally, my view is that no matter how good the answers these machine learning systems give us, *they’re not worth the cost. *Quite apart from the well-documented energy/water/environmental impact (which must surely be our most important criterion when making any decision, these days), and the social impacts (including educational, where ML has hit me personally the hardest), from a scholarly perspective we have a duty to be critical of our sources—and when they come from a LLM we simply can’t interrogate them properly.
As the editor of *Annals*, I need to follow the IEEE’s publication guidelines on the use of machine learning systems in the production of manuscripts: it is mandatory that authors declare if they have ML-generated text, but not if they have used a tool to check/correct their spelling or grammar. Clearly this is a bit of a strange distinction: if an author accepts a Grammarly-rewrite of a sentence, aren’t they including ML-generated text?
What I have not found *so far *is whether there is any requirement to declare the use of ML-based tools in their research. Again, there may be grey areas—I’m pretty sure Preview on my Mac is automatically OCR’ing text in all my scanned PDFs—that’s probably ML-based but I can’t do much about it—but it feels to me like there there is a distinction between that and asking a chatbot to do your research for you.
As a community of scholars we will have to set our own standards here. While my personal view is always going to be anti-ML, I will do my best to listen openly and make sure the community is served as best as possible by *Annals*.
Best,
Dr. Troy Kaighin Astarte (they/them / nhw)
I often dictate messages due to motor disability; please forgive any oddities resulting.
Lecturer, Computer Science / Darlithydd, Cyfrifiadureg Swansea University / Prifysgol Abertawe Editor-in-Chief / Prif Olygydd, *IEEE Annals of the History of Computing*
For students: my drop in hours are on the Intranet <https://fse-intranet.swan.ac.uk/intranet/staff_officehours?selected_staff_id=203842> (office CoFo 407) I fyfyrwyr: mae fy oriau swyddfa ar y fewnrwyd. Meeting booking: via Office Booking <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/8e101a47e22e4af793d033901758d0e4@Swansea.ac.uk/meetingtype/SVRwCe7HMUGxuT6WGxi68g2?anonymous&ep=mlink> . Zoom office: https://swanseauniversity.zoom.us/my/t.k.astarte
Every email has a cost to the climate. Please think before sending short emails. Mae gan bob e-bost gost i’r hinsawdd. Meddyliwch cyn i chi anfon e-byst byr.
Yes, I have switched my default message font. Do you like it?
On 6 May 2025, at 23:39, Ceruzzi, Paul via Members < members@lists.sigcis.org> wrote:
*CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of Swansea University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
*RHYBUDD:* Daeth yr e-bost hwn o'r tu allan i Brifysgol Abertawe. Peidiwch â chlicio ar atodiadau neu agor atodiadau oni bai eich bod chi'n adnabod yr anfonwr a'ch bod yn gwybod bod y cynnwys yn ddiogel. *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of Swansea University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
*RHYBUDD:* Daeth yr e-bost hwn o'r tu allan i Brifysgol Abertawe. Peidiwch â chlicio ar atodiadau neu agor atodiadau oni bai eich bod chi'n adnabod yr anfonwr a'ch bod yn gwybod bod y cynnwys yn ddiogel. Thank you for bringing up this thread. Agree that there has been a great advance in the past year, of which I was unaware. Not as easy as it once was to get the programs to hallucinate.
I was chatting with a Google employee the other day. He works in the Reston, Virginia office and was familiar with my book on Tysons Corner ("Internet Alley"). I told him of my Substack posts on the concentration of Data Centers in neighboring Ashburn. He suggested that I write a second edition of the book to cover this topic. I told him that as a retiree I no longer have the energy or stamina to write another book. He said (paraphrasing): "Let Google Gemini write it for you. It will do an excellent job. No problem, as long as you supervise it, and acknowledge how the Second Edition was written."
As Jack Benny once said, "I'm thinking it over."
Paul Ceruzzi Substack.com/@paulceruzzi <http://substack.com/@paulceruzzi> ------------------------------ *From:* Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> on behalf of Adam Hyland via Members <members@lists.sigcis.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 6, 2025 6:15 PM *To:* Brian Randell <brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk> *Cc:* Sigcis <members@sigcis.org> *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Perplexity
*External Email - Exercise Caution* Thanks for your return to this topic. The perplexity thread you shared is private and unfortunately the pdf generated obscures the answer with a UI element. I’ve asked the same question to Perplexity using their “research” mode which more profligately uses computing resources to give a more detailed answer. The result is here (
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/did-percy-ludgate-s-work-have-oxneW37nS9.bA...) and should be available to anyone with the URL.
I’m familiar with perplexity because the University of Washington pays for “pro” access which makes it both partially difficult and morally dubious to proscribe its use in the classroom.
One broad point is probably obvious to everyone but bears repeating: there is much more difference in capability between any of these agents today versus a year ago than there is among the agents themselves. They all show a dramatic increase in capability to “understand” queries and generate cogent responses. If someone on this thread last posed one of their exam questions to ChatGPT last year they ought to try again today, and again in another month.
-Adam
Adam Hyland (*he/him)* adampunk.com UW HCDE PhD Student
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:57 AM Brian Randell via Members < members@lists.sigcis.org> wrote:
Hi:
A while ago I and colleagues published a short critique in the Annals of the History of Computing of ChatGPT, based on its performance on some questions about Percy Ludgate.
I’ve recently been trying (the free version of) Perplexity, the AI search (or more exactly question-answering) system.
Perplexity itself claims:
Here's what makes Perplexity different
Answers that are accurate and always cited We continuously search the internet and identify the best sources, from academic research to Reddit threads, to provide the perfect answer to any question.
Citations in every response Every answer uses cited sources to provide a more accurate and comprehensive answer. If you want to dig deeper, just click the link to the source.
See its brilliant answer to the question “Did Percy Ludgate's work have any impact?”:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/did-percy-ludgate-s-work-have-2esemV.BRuCo0... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.perplexity.ai/search/did-percy-ludgate-s-work-have-2esemV.BRuCo0Q7O_4AxfA__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gyxp0x4-UgdlqkBkNCRifXnXGAv6Y1rWzqMDvgDAx9lcE0e3xttiUQD_Zgg0jayzgaPV_LCgiwp1l7QbFBQe$>
The web version limits the number of questions per day – so far the iPhone App hasn’t.
I assume I’m not alone here in trying Perplexity, but I don’t recall any previous comment about it in SIGCIS.
However, the Wikipedia article about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perplexity_AI <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perplexity_AI__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gyxp0x4-UgdlqkBkNCRifXnXGAv6Y1rWzqMDvgDAx9lcE0e3xttiUQD_Zgg0jayzgaPV_LCgiwp1l_ByERqJ$> is a little sobering, regarding its alleged copyright violations, and failure to respect the robots.txt web-crawling standards.
Cheers
Brian _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis... and you can change your subscription options at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sig...
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382