Sterling Fluharty
@sterlingfluharty.bsky.social
Independent Scholar. Working in history and data.
Thanks for sharing. It sounds like a fascinating topic. Will your class also discuss the litigation trying to hold Big Tech accountable for training on books (initially Meta), the efforts to compensate authors (currently Anthropic), or the efforts underway to build The Public Interest Corpus?
November 14, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Thanks for sharing. It sounds like a fascinating topic. Will your class also discuss the litigation trying to hold Big Tech accountable for training on books (initially Meta), the efforts to compensate authors (currently Anthropic), or the efforts underway to build The Public Interest Corpus?
I’m glad it was helpful. My SSHA paper scrapes Bluesky for trends in the discourse of historians about AI, and draws upon Kuhn to assess the possibilities of epistemological crisis and paradigm shift within the profession. Much of my prompt today came from my recent immersion in this material.
November 4, 2025 at 10:30 PM
I’m glad it was helpful. My SSHA paper scrapes Bluesky for trends in the discourse of historians about AI, and draws upon Kuhn to assess the possibilities of epistemological crisis and paradigm shift within the profession. Much of my prompt today came from my recent immersion in this material.
Here is the chat transcript:
ChatGPT - Article evaluation on AI
Shared via ChatGPT
chatgpt.com
November 4, 2025 at 10:14 PM
Here is the chat transcript:
Thanks for sharing. Elements of it reminded me of the paper I wrote for SSHA this month. I gave your essay a critical reading, shared my questions with ChatGPT, and it came up with strengths and gaps across 21 dimensions. I can share the transcript, if you are interested.
November 4, 2025 at 9:59 PM
Thanks for sharing. Elements of it reminded me of the paper I wrote for SSHA this month. I gave your essay a critical reading, shared my questions with ChatGPT, and it came up with strengths and gaps across 21 dimensions. I can share the transcript, if you are interested.
I think the site received an update a few months ago and many of the links got moved around. Does this one work for you? www.loc.gov/collections/...
Directory of U.S. Newspapers in American Libraries | The Library of Congress
Search results 1 - 20 of 20.
www.loc.gov
October 22, 2025 at 12:22 AM
I think the site received an update a few months ago and many of the links got moved around. Does this one work for you? www.loc.gov/collections/...
Interesting observations. I imagine the committee that produced these guidelines tried to critique techno-optimism, but ended up uncritically incorporating their perception of a critical perspective (“stochastic parrots”). The follow-up event this week hints at an effort to recalibrate the guidance.
September 22, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Interesting observations. I imagine the committee that produced these guidelines tried to critique techno-optimism, but ended up uncritically incorporating their perception of a critical perspective (“stochastic parrots”). The follow-up event this week hints at an effort to recalibrate the guidance.
Agreed. I sometimes wonder how the different constituencies and sides of the issues will learn from each other. We can certainly publish our work, and hope that readers will find it. I’m also a fan of bringing people together. I was excited to see the space given to AI in the 2025 SSHA CFP.
September 8, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Agreed. I sometimes wonder how the different constituencies and sides of the issues will learn from each other. We can certainly publish our work, and hope that readers will find it. I’m also a fan of bringing people together. I was excited to see the space given to AI in the 2025 SSHA CFP.
But in the era of AI, Guldi’s 2022 book does not tell us how to navigate ethical issues with LLMs, explain how to optimize prompts, or show us how to evaluate generative outputs.
September 8, 2025 at 8:27 PM
But in the era of AI, Guldi’s 2022 book does not tell us how to navigate ethical issues with LLMs, explain how to optimize prompts, or show us how to evaluate generative outputs.
I agree the book’s ideas still hold, that historical context is needed to avoid misinterpretations of data, naive data analysis will amplify biases, and that a hybrid approach that draws from both history & data science is necessary to interpret the results of data analysis and to correct for bias.
September 8, 2025 at 8:26 PM
I agree the book’s ideas still hold, that historical context is needed to avoid misinterpretations of data, naive data analysis will amplify biases, and that a hybrid approach that draws from both history & data science is necessary to interpret the results of data analysis and to correct for bias.
Guldi’s book is designed to speak to data scientists and humanists. But it feels a bit dated for LLMs. I did see a retweet from Guldi earlier this year about how well Claude was converting hand written historical documents into CSV files, a nod perhaps to AI as a tool in circumscribed use cases.
September 8, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Guldi’s book is designed to speak to data scientists and humanists. But it feels a bit dated for LLMs. I did see a retweet from Guldi earlier this year about how well Claude was converting hand written historical documents into CSV files, a nod perhaps to AI as a tool in circumscribed use cases.
Tech bros might see history as names, dates, and places. If so, AI can create history that sticks to the “facts.” Academic historians argue AI cannot replicate their creativity, but this accepts the premise of “remainder humanism.” Benjamin Breen is the rare historian who uses AI as an interlocutor.
September 8, 2025 at 7:41 PM
Tech bros might see history as names, dates, and places. If so, AI can create history that sticks to the “facts.” Academic historians argue AI cannot replicate their creativity, but this accepts the premise of “remainder humanism.” Benjamin Breen is the rare historian who uses AI as an interlocutor.
Oops, autocorrect turned epistemic into epidemic.
September 8, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Oops, autocorrect turned epistemic into epidemic.
Recent Microsoft study said historians are second most likely to have their tasks automated. Sarah Weicksel of AHA responded that AI cannot replace the expertise of academic historians. Matthew Jones, also at Princeton, argues that historical methods could tackle the epidemic crisis caused by AI.
September 8, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Recent Microsoft study said historians are second most likely to have their tasks automated. Sarah Weicksel of AHA responded that AI cannot replace the expertise of academic historians. Matthew Jones, also at Princeton, argues that historical methods could tackle the epidemic crisis caused by AI.
Tracing copyright ownership is another complexity not fully explored by the proposed settlement. The copyright could be held by an author, heirs, a publisher, or an employer. I also saw no discussion of reversion rights in the court doc, but payouts for books out of print could motivate parties.
September 5, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Tracing copyright ownership is another complexity not fully explored by the proposed settlement. The copyright could be held by an author, heirs, a publisher, or an employer. I also saw no discussion of reversion rights in the court doc, but payouts for books out of print could motivate parties.
Another complication is that many authors of copyrighted books may have passed away. It is possible that many authors with U.S. copyrighted books live outside the country. And I’m not sure the proposed settlement explains the payout for a textbook with multiple editions and ISBNs but one copyright.
September 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Another complication is that many authors of copyrighted books may have passed away. It is possible that many authors with U.S. copyrighted books live outside the country. And I’m not sure the proposed settlement explains the payout for a textbook with multiple editions and ISBNs but one copyright.
There will likely be additional complications for this proposed plan. The publishing landscape in the U.S. has seen significant consolidation over the last century, and apparently the fates of publishing houses (e.g., who bought who or was merged into who) isn’t tracked by the U.S. copyright office.
September 5, 2025 at 9:53 PM
There will likely be additional complications for this proposed plan. The publishing landscape in the U.S. has seen significant consolidation over the last century, and apparently the fates of publishing houses (e.g., who bought who or was merged into who) isn’t tracked by the U.S. copyright office.
If approved, Anthropic has 120 days to 2 years to pay out. Authors & publishers can submit claims by mail and online. There will be a campaign via print and online to get word out. After receiving notice from an administrator, a potential claimant has 60 days to opt-out and 120 days to file a claim.
September 5, 2025 at 9:26 PM
If approved, Anthropic has 120 days to 2 years to pay out. Authors & publishers can submit claims by mail and online. There will be a campaign via print and online to get word out. After receiving notice from an administrator, a potential claimant has 60 days to opt-out and 120 days to file a claim.
Anthropic had 7M downloads from pirated books. Metadata, esp. ISBN, was extracted and matched to registration records from U.S. Copyright Office. Dedup, false pos & neg, and other robust checks yielded 465k books on Works List. Anthropic will report by Sept 15 whether it will add additional books.
September 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Anthropic had 7M downloads from pirated books. Metadata, esp. ISBN, was extracted and matched to registration records from U.S. Copyright Office. Dedup, false pos & neg, and other robust checks yielded 465k books on Works List. Anthropic will report by Sept 15 whether it will add additional books.
There is a proposed plan of allocation that is designed to help authors and publishers figure out how to split the $3k per pirated book.
September 5, 2025 at 9:11 PM
There is a proposed plan of allocation that is designed to help authors and publishers figure out how to split the $3k per pirated book.
There is a link to court filing in this article:
Media Roundup + Statements: “Anthropic Agrees to Pay $1.5 Billion to Settle Lawsuit With Book Authors”
Primary Document: Settlement Agreement (39 pages; PDF) (via CourtListener) From The NY Times: In a landmark settlement, Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company, has agreed to pay $1.5 bil...
www.infodocket.com
September 5, 2025 at 9:10 PM
There is a link to court filing in this article: