Opting-out of inevitability reflections on critical refusal of generative AI in academic libraries - Salma Abumeeiz and Jamie Hazlitt

Editor's Notes

• #2 Jamie
• #3 Jamie
• #4 Salma - introduce herself Jamie - introduce herself
• #5 Jamie UCLA Library 450 librarians + staff. 10 libraries. UCLA R1 public university One of ten campuses in the University of California system 141 bachelor's, 146 master's, and 124 doctoral/professional degrees (including at least a half dozen (and counting) degree programs with emphases or concentrations in AI (health sciences, engineering, data science, management) 48,651 students: 33,471 undergraduates, 13,855 graduate students and 1,325 interns and residents in medicine and dentistry International research reputation Birthplace of the internet (1969)... this is something that looms large in the university’s reputation, and this shows through in the university’s “official” stance around adoption of generative AI into the operational, teaching, and research enterprises.
• #6 Jamie I’m sharing one of our campus pages related to AI, to demonstrate the landscape that we’re operating in at our home institution. “The AI Innovation Initiative is a campus-wide effort to build AI fluency, foster innovation, and drive responsible AI adoption. Through strategic partnerships with leaders like OpenAI and Google, we’re empowering faculty, staff, and students to explore high-impact use cases, prototype solutions, and apply AI ethically across research, teaching, and operations.” Dozens upon dozens of unit, department or school/college working groups around AI, an AI advisory committee for the Center for Teaching and Learning (on which I’m a member), and a newly convened official Campus-wide AI committee, on which our university librarian is a representative At UCLA Library… No library AI policy, whitepaper, statement, or library-wide committee (although this is an initiative that the university librarian is interested in centralizing, we are not there yet). UCLA librarians’ engagement with Generative AI runs across the entire spectrum from denial, to refusal, to enthusiastic adoption and experimentation. We’re engaging with students (and each other) in different ways, but it’s largely based on individual efforts rather than a coordinated approach + effort. As we are shaping this, where do we create and empower space for critical refusal?
• #7 Salma Keep it short Terminology vs technology stuff could go here? Marketing dimension of the term, commercial benefit of collapsing all AI into one amorphous thing: “Lumping all of these different technologies under the label of “AI” creates the illusion of “intelligent” technology: if our photo software’s sharpening tool is imagined to be the same thing as the system that appears to cheerfully answer questions on any topic, then both are perceived as even more “intelligent” or even “magical” than each alone, and we’re more likely to accept automation in other domains, like deciding who gets social benefits or who is classified as a possible repeat offender. “There are all supposedly driven by the same “intelligence.” (p. 24) Scope of the discussion - massive LLMS Establish definition before polling? (this way folks are thinking about the same thing when they’re responding)
• #8 Poll 1 - https://www.menti.com/aldkvc3w5yrj Mentimeter (SA will develop poll) Do you currently use generative AI in your library work? I teach students and faculty about concepts and skills related to Gen AI I use it as a tool in my individual work No - I do not use it How empowered do you feel to refuse generative AI? Have you felt pressure to adopt generative AI: In your individual work? At an institutional level?
• #9 Salma
• #10  Salma A refusal of AI in creative work begins with a refusal of that product’s ideological packaging. Lay claim to resources that were not their own, reinterprets the rules to insist that they were always there’s, Making visible the AI Development supply chain, from intellectual theft to global south workers who are content mining, they are also inherently labor automating Empire is monopolized knowledge production: Critique of the tool as facilitating critical thinking, not “using the tool effectively”
• #11  Salma “Large Language Muddle.” The Editors. n+1. 2025.
• #12 Salma - slides 3-4 “That is a bid to steal our agency” “What if we say, no on the insistence of this tech in all areas of our lives”
• #13 Desire to assert futurity “Focussed on what we think is relevant to helping the youth transition into adulthood and we are helping them with what they need - generational bind” Sympathetic acknowledgement of this fear and why libraries (who are often the target of austerity) might be more willing to accept this
• #14 Poll 2 - https://www.menti.com/aldkvc3w5yrj Mentimeter (SA will develop poll) Do you currently use generative AI in your library work? I teach students and faculty about concepts and skills related to Gen AI I use it as a tool in my individual work No - I do not use it How empowered do you feel to refuse generative AI? Have you felt pressure to adopt generative AI: In your individual work? At an institutional level?
• #15 Salma - slides 3-4 ““Although they claim to be working in the best interests of humanity at large, those working in alignment summarily ignore the violence of the current moment, of the “doom” that has befallen large swaths of people under the guise of “AI” and progress.”
• #16  Tangible and intangible (emotional) push “Meet the needs of our users” What this is looking like in libraries
• #17 Jamie March 2025 draft, which was critically received in a packed auditorium at the ACRL conference, introduced these “dispositions” as essential characteristics that academic librarians should adopt in relation to AI and our work. They invite curiosity, willingness, an invitation to check our own biases around AI, maintaining an open mind… and conclude with a bullet about reflection and growth around ethical and environmental responsibilities. The competencies also included ethical considerations, but they were last in the document. (in short- AI, did you write this?) Framed as: “No matter how you feel about the technology, it has already changed our work.” Feedback was highly critical, particularly of the “Use and Application” competencies - one commenter noticed that these read with an assumption that all jobs can be improved through AI Lacked critical considerations of harms, appropriate when to use vs not Strong desire expressed to include an option for library workers to be empowered to opt out of using AI
• #18 Jamie The Final competencies document, adopted and published by ACRL in October 2025, includes stronger language around skepticism and judgment. And the four categories of competencies included in the March 2025 draft remained the same, but with Ethical Considerations moved to the top of the document. Most importantly - and I think as a reflection of the concerns raised by members of our community around the draft - the final document explicitly states that: AI literacy does not imply mandatory adoption of AI tools. To be clear, this is still a document that appears primarily designed to present competencies around knowledge, use, and application of AI tools in library work. But the more explicit invitations for critical approaches to the technology leave space for the critical refusal that we are inviting you to consider today.
• #19 Desire to assert futurity “Focussed on what we think is relevant to helping the youth transition into adulthood and we are helping them with what they need - generational bind” Sympathetic acknowledgement of this fear and why libraries (who are often the target of austerity) might be more willing to accept this
• #20 What this is looking like in libraries , factual things about AI that are factual or neutral, followed by some ethical concerns, and then moving on replicating industry narratives of inevitability (David James Hudson, 2026)
• #21 But resisting hype can also be empowering, grounding and even joyful. It is empowering to reaffirm the value of our skills and expertise. It is grounding to lean on the value of human-to-human connection, and being human together.
• #22 But resisting hype can also be empowering, grounding and even joyful. It is empowering to reaffirm the value of our skills and expertise. It is grounding to lean on the value of human-to-human connection, and being human together. Urban Consulate.
• #23 Poll 3 - https://www.menti.com/aldkvc3w5yrj Salma Mentimeter (SA will develop poll) Do you currently use generative AI in your library work? I teach students and faculty about concepts and skills related to Gen AI I use it as a tool in my individual work No - I do not use it How empowered do you feel to refuse generative AI? Have you felt pressure to adopt generative AI: In your individual work? At an institutional level?
• #25 AI for Whose Good? Lessons from Community Resistance to Automation at the Port of Los Angeles By Sophie Wang and Taylor M. Cruz Critical reading exercise in response to AI use for reading (cluster) Reflections on response to lecture summary vs. Chat response (cluster) Lateral reading and funding (Sylvia WayMo example) Anatomy of an AI Model (Michelle)
• #26 Where have you felt pressure to adopt generative AI in your individual work? Have you ever said "no"? Why or why not? How can we build collective power to critique these tools? What does "refusal" look like in your specific library context? How can we move past individual framings of refusal as a personal choice rather than collective one? How can library workers reclaim autonomy and model best practices among mounting pressures? What might spectrums of refusal look like for you?
• #28 Where have you felt pressure to adopt generative AI in your individual work? Have you ever said "no"? Why or why not? How can we build collective power to critique these tools? What does "refusal" look like in your specific library context? How can we move past individual framings of refusal as a personal choice rather than collective one? How can library workers reclaim autonomy and model best practices among mounting pressures? What might spectrums of refusal look like for you?