This brings me joy.

I think these kinds of questions must be explicitly considered, as robust understanding of genAI agents limits and capabilities is incredibly uneven and unintentional harm/inaccuracies could too easily be introduced into the literature without foregrounding this.

What research question is the resulting paper supposed to be answering? I realize that “insights” can be derived from any collection of data, but where does intellectual discourse and critique come in?
And since AI cannot be an author, how does attribution occur?

Meta initially considered licensing books. New legal docs show that a Llama senior manager felt it was “really important for [Meta] to get books ASAP,” as “books are actually more important than web data.” Paying and waiting wouldn't do. So they sought—and received—permission to torrent LibGen.

Definitely going to be something to assess and evaluate. I hope it does help support colleagues who are looking for this professional development.
But still important to interrogate all the things, all the time!

(I’m on the Board). I share your physical reactions to the optics and also dug into the autonomy of the foundation and how to best serve members who are looking for support. In the end, and with a great deal of investigation, the Board felt that this was an approach that did not sacrifice our values

I was part of the conversations where we were assured that the foundation would have no ties to the product-side of the company. It’s also my understanding that they are not involved in the content. ACRL is trying to meet member needs using available resourcing & I promise we are being critical.