Fantastic Futures 2024 - Day 1 - Session 9

This transcript was generated by NFSA Bowerbird and may contain errors.

So I'd like to say Yuma and acknowledge the people and pay my respects to elders past and present and emerging leaders and acknowledge any Indigenous people in the room. So this is a wonderful opportunity for us to meet people. Many of us have not had this sort of face-to-face experience since before COVID and I would similarly encourage you to talk to people, make new friends as well as connect with old friends. This is a fantastic session. I'm so looking forward to this. So our two speakers are very distinguished, but most importantly, thoughtful people in a whole range of issues relating to Indigenous knowledge. This has been a really good conference for bringing out the human side as well as the technology side of creating new futures, and this panel will be exceptional. So Kirsten Thorpe is genuinely one of the most interesting speakers you will hear. She's committed to really unpacking issues for particularly libraries and archives in relation to Indigenous knowledge and she is the Chancellor's Indigenous Research Fellow at the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney. I just wanted to particularly mention a project that she is working on called IREEL, Inclusive Requirements for Elicitation for AI in Libraries to Support Respectful Management of Indigenous Knowledges. You will be following this project for a number of years and there will be amazing things continuing to come out of it. Sydney will be doing a bit of introduction of herself but I will just say that her exploration of different ideas and continuing research around the nature of the written word and the book is truly fascinating and I being an Australian can never pronounce New Zealand vowels properly. So I will say she is a reader in book history and printer at YTATA Press at Victoria University of Wellington. So we will have a lot of conversations this afternoon where we will explore Indigenous issues. I do encourage you to make sure that at conversations within lunch breaks and tea breaks, that you have conversations with our speakers, because this is truly an opportunity where both our nations are exploring new issues in a way that is unpacking the complexity of the relationship that we have with Indigenous knowledge in a way that is radically different from the traditional way we've looked at knowledge organisation and analysis. and we need to take a completely different mindset, similar to the discussions today that we've had about the difference between thinking with a database method and thinking about an AI method being completely different. So, now Sydney, you're going to introduce yourself a little bit. Would you like to do that and then Kirsten, and then I'll start on some questions. I speak with the voice of the Macdonald of the Isles, of Balrano, North Uist, and St. Kilda. I speak with the voice of the McKinley's of Skye. I speak with the voice of the Langs of Lough Easter, of Tain, and of Nig, and of Kalrossie Farm. I speak transplanted of Bridalban, Prince Edward Island, of Calgary, Alberta, of Toronto, Ontario. I speak translated of Haurakiwi, Wellington, Aotearoa, New Zealand. I speak as an immigrant researcher, a scholar of cultural migration, a seeker of circles. I felt it important to declare my positionality, particularly as I come as an immigrant researcher to new lands. I acknowledge this land. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people. And I acknowledge the trauma of displacement, of language loss, and of dispossession. And I hope that frames some of the comments as I speak with my Indigenous colleagues, not for them. Kia ora. Thank you, Sydney. I likewise would like to thank Aunty Violet for her welcome this morning. For me, welcome is about situated knowledge, it's about breathing, it's about respecting community who have cared for the land and I think really importantly when we're in places like being here on Ngunnawal country, it's not just thinking about people-centered histories, but actually thinking about the natural environment that's around us. So thanks to the Ngunnawal community for having us here. My name's Kirsten Thorpe. I have to live up to Roxanne's introduction then, which is a bit daunting. My family are Wurrumi people from Port Stephens in New South Wales. And I live on Darkinjung country and work on Gadigal country at UTS. I'm here with my colleague, Dr. Lauren Booker. I want to acknowledge her as well in the work that we do at UTS. I'll probably speak through it a little bit in terms of my contribution today. But I'm so pleased to be here and to be talking with you all in this session. I've really enjoyed the balance between technology and ethics. So similar to Sydney just thinking about driving some of that positionality and thinking about indigenous sovereignty. I know that earlier Keir talked about the word sovereignty is a complex one. So maybe that's something as well that we can address in this talk. Thanks. Thank you both. Now Kirsten, would you like to start off by talking about the genesis of your thinking about Indigenous archives and library collections and how that has influenced the way that you have been engaged in the iReal project? Yeah, as I've listened to the talks, one of the things that my experiences have brought and I guess again thinking about that idea of standpoint is recognising in an Australian context that data has been used as a tool in the colonial project. I draw a lot on Indigenous scholar Irene Watson's work who describes the way that Indigenous people have been documented through what she calls an apparatus of tools and I really position the work of libraries and archives as being one of the pillars of dispossession of Indigenous people. My earliest sort of entry into the archives came in the late 1990s after the Bring Them Home report. when there was real recognition in Australia that or the first time that there was evidence of and testimony of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being removed from their families and starting training as an archivist at that time and being in a reading room and seeing Stolen Generation survivors come into that reading room and attempt to access a history that actually was never documented from their perspective. And throughout all of my work, I really want to thank Peter Lucas Jones for this morning for his contribution. A lot of my work stems back to that really early being in my young 20s as a younger person, feeling the pain and trauma of people coming in to access information that didn't represent their lived history. And so for me now, my research and academic research, I position in the context of working between critical library and archival studies in an Indigenous-led research institute. And I think that intersection is really important because, you know, reflecting back on Stolen Generation survivors coming into the archives, what I saw was a system that was broken, that didn't evidence people's needs. And for me, that was 20 years ago, and we've had those phases that people have talked about today of seeing the rush for digitization. And now we're in a landscape of talking about Indigenous data sovereignty and the use of Indigenous data in new technologies, including AI. And I always go back to those questions of how are we both causing ongoing trauma to people and not removing that from, you know, Peter talked this morning about incarceration rates and I think similarly here in Australia thinking about The work of places like the Healing Foundation looking at, you know, the ongoing effects of child removal, suicide rates on Indigenous people. We can't remove the work of the GLAM sector from those lived realities. So, a lot of the work that I do is driven by that. It's also fiercely driven in terms of contributing to something like the IRL project in Thinking about the methodologies and methods that we need to bring to actually enact the principles. And I loved hearing the work of the NFSA this morning in actually putting transparently, this is what's guiding our work. Because I think that, for me, the IRA project, and we'll be speaking about it a little bit tomorrow, is about that investment in methods and us peeling back our assumptions in that work. If I could add to that, it's for me very much the idea that coming into a space as a historian, irrespective of the archival turn in history, as it's called, which tried to explode the colonial constructions of the data that we use as everyday researchers in a history world. It's been a challenge and also a sense of social justice to make those records speak, to consider them, yes, data, but data is a living thing. Those objects are real. They are potent. They have voices. And it's the role of the historian not to overlay those with additional voices and additional frameworks, but to let those voices speak. And I think my journey into working with indigenous scholars bringing through Maori researchers who are now well-respected in their field, has been a move to redraw the assumptions around what Linda Toowai-Smith calls helicopter research. One of the main projects I was brought into was basically another university wanting to engage with Maori, so a project of relevance to Maori. What does that mean? Well, that means you take their data and do something with it and feedback the results. For us, we were deeply uncomfortable with that. And so to think in the context of what does it mean to think about te ao Māori, the Māori worldview, to think about the people who live within that, who are shaped culturally, topographically, socially, economically, politically, what does it mean actually to think your way into another culture and to enable people to walk into that culture feeling empowered in order to make change has been a really important driver for the work that I do and with my team. So that was a really powerful example of taking what we often see of people who wish to have goodwill, taking just wanting a project where they can apply traditional thinking to. One of the challenges has been that the knowledge organisations that we work in, in the GLAM sector, are not relatable, really, for many people who need access to their history, the voices of their world. We've seen different projects that have been, through trauma or through link-up from IATSIS, creating access to information and we've seen remarkable work particularly at UTS with Alex Byrne and Martin Nakata coming up with principles. several decades ago that have indicated goodwill but have still often been structured around our institutions and the way we've categorised institutional knowledge. What do you think AI can do in breaking down those barriers or what as well do you think we need to bear in mind when we're thinking how we can use that construct to provide something that is still perhaps alien to the people who need access to the information that we have trapped within our institutions? Thanks for watching. Big, big questions. I guess I want to disabuse us of the fact that access just means discoverability. Yep. Access means what is the benefit? And you can provide access, but at the end of the day, who are you benefiting and who are you harming? And so I think that's a critical juncture where you start thinking then about your strategies for discoverability and what communities are you working with to find out how those moments of access are framed and how they're implemented, and what benefit do you get out of that? So I think that access is a critical component, but I think it really does have to be reframed these ways, community-centric, co-designed, so that any technology you use, as we phrase it, technology in the service of the kopapa, in service of the aims and objectives of what you are aiming to do. Technology is not the driver. I was thinking about Honiana's call to action around distributed community archives. That's certainly in our work at Jumbunna, one of the major drivers of our engagement in the indigenous archives and data stewardship hub of supporting community capacity building and thinking about living archives on country. So I think, you know, for me at the moment in Glam, where I feel like we're in a moment of reckoning, you know, in our sort of reflection back on the voice, on the current sort of focuses in our states around treaty and truth-telling, and I think GLAM is sort of switched in there at some point, and for me AI is actually a really important moment for us to bring those two things together and actually embrace technology in a way that doesn't continue the perpetration of harm, but actually starts to feed into some of these agendas in really new and exciting ways. And I think that that is going to take the principles approach that National Film and Sound Archive have talked about, But also a real divestment of power and looking at the way that we do work and actually re-centering community in those conversations. But I know when we were talking about this panel, we were also saying that the potential AI at the moment is to actually start to bring some of those truths around the Australian colonial project and more broadly how that colonial project played out internationally into our consciousness in the glam sector. I think we sometimes think that things happen in history and we weren't part of it. And so I think that AI can start to name, we've got a whole movement of reparative description that I think is important, but it also takes the lens away from us being accountable in the GLAM sector for how we were a pillar of that colonial project. So I'm excited about even hearing you know, some of you technologists in the room talking earlier about the taxonomies, the language, you know, perhaps if we even think about, well, what kind of language would we use to start to name the colonial violence? I mean, I think back to my time at the State Archives and files that related to the native police were often named things like Aboriginal atrocities. And of course, it was the community who were being harmed by genocidal practices. So how do we start to use technologies to bring light to our work and actually feed that into national agendas? We've got really significant moments at the moment happening around closing the gap. I know the latest Productivity Commission talked about creating an Indigenous Data Bureau. We've got so much to give in our sector, so I don't want to see it as this sort of discovery drive, but us working, as you've said, to contribute to social justice. Thank you. We often look to New Zealand and think that they're a couple of decades ahead of us because there's been discussion for so long, and also there is a larger Indigenous community that has been very active, which I think has been important. And sometimes my New Zealand colleagues tell me it's been a very uneven experience, and then they make some comments about the current government. But are there some models or discoveries that you think from the New Zealand experience that we can learn from in order to rethink how we would look at AI or look at technologies to be able to address this issue in a positive way? Yeah, if we'll just turn to the first slide, Vanessa, that definition of Māori data sovereignty comes out of one of the key organisations that's a player within the Māori data sovereignty space, but also equally so in the Indigenous data sovereignty space. And Te Mano Raranga has really made a point of developing principles that will play out into practices in this space. And part of that is related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the treaty that underpins colonial relations in the current government. is endeavored to be re-litigated, much to the discomfort and re-traumatization of the country. But under that Article 2, Tinurangitiratang is a very rich description of what is a pale reflection when we use the term sovereignty. So in order to enact whatever that Māori data means and whatever Māori data sovereignty means, a subset of Te Manu Raranga, Te Kahui Raranga, has developed the Māori data governance framework. Many of you will have seen this, many of you may be using it within your institutions, which I would highly recommend. to just see, to track how sensitive are you to those issues within the data sphere that deal with indigenous data, remembering that data is a living thing, data is people, data is place, data is language. So those are two frameworks. The CARE and FAIR principles are obviously often cited, but it's in a way rather uneven as organizations such as government agencies try to develop capacity within their agency, thinking they have to do that before they can go out to communities to be able to have conversations. I would turn that on its head and say, well, you can't have that knowledge until you have those conversations, which are like a thousand cups of tea. You've got to spend the time, you've got to spend the resource, you have to have the humility to be able to work within communities and predominantly listen. So within iwi hapu, even whānau communities, the whole notion of all of these ideas around principles and practices of data sovereignty mean nothing at the flax root level, really, at the end of the day. Because they're desperate to reconnect with their identities, their histories, and however that's happening, digitization might be one solution. Digital rematriation might be another, but it's a sorry shadow of a culture that has, in many ways, as Peter Lucas Jones has eloquently told us, a culture that, in losing its language, it loses its cultural identity. So we do have these models in place. They are slowly being implemented, but we're all feeling very fractured, fragile, vulnerable, and exposed, given the current government wants to turn back the pages to the past and recolonize those spaces that we have for many years. endeavored to both create, implement, and live in a day-to-day environment. For me, the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Movement, I mean, I talk about it as a movement because I think it really is upon us and I think that's incredibly exciting that, you know, from the leadership of people that set the pace, you know, with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People have seen, you know, as was described this morning, if data is land, then we have to participate in the care and protection of knowledge and we have to also reclaim the material that is held in our galleries, libraries, archives and museums both here and internationally to inform and to make community sites of production and return that material so that people can be well and they can use that material for economic benefit and for the health of community. I'm really excited about data sovereignty and looking at the shared space in Australia. The Myungarri Wingara Collective are feeding into the Global Indigenous Data Alliance. I'm fortunate to have joined that group with Rose Barakalif recently to really start to think what are the questions that data sovereignty will bring to GLAM. And I think that AI really heightens the question of indigenous data governance. And if we're looking at a landscape where material was collected without the informed consent of communities, we've got the considerations of indigenous cultural and intellectual property, what are our obligations? Not to do the soft stuff of cultural awareness or the good things that we like to feel good about, which are very, they're vitally important. But if this is actually a rights agenda, then communities have, the rights to have access to that material and to control it. And I think that's what the care principles demand is more than, you know, I always critique the words discovery and explore. They're colonial constructs in themselves. Community have a right to know that that material exists. And, you know, if we're going back to looking at the experiences of stolen generation survivors, if that material is sitting in our archives, then we also have to give people the right to respond to that material. And I think that Peter hit the nail on the head this morning talking about the sort of idea of crowdsourcing. But if that's actually, if that was yourself or your mother or your grandmother or grandfather, what is your expectation for that data to be cared for and to be fully, I guess, contextualized in a way that supports those rights? I'm really excited about Indigenous data sovereignty for that move to governance, and I think that the articulation of Indigenous data sovereignty is both a recognition of those principles, but it's the effective decision-making of communities. And in the framework, there are sort of data the data that's constructed for communities to inform their work, but also the need for data to be governed by Indigenous principles. And I think that while GLAM is probably on one side of that, they need to be thinking about, well, how do we effectively have Indigenous people participating in decision-making, we also have to be thinking about those sites of community archives, the living archives on country, and how, I guess we reframe, you know, what is the pursuit of collecting? Is it care for country? Is it care for, you know, we know that we're in a climate crisis. How are we thinking about this stuff differently? So, I think, coupled for me, the IRL project, and I should acknowledge the broader team at University of Glasgow, Professor Paul Gooding, Dr. Rosie Spooner, and Sam Callaghan at King's Digital Lab for kind of bringing Lauren and I into a conversation that has been mostly online and quite complex, but I guess we're starting to pull apart all these tensions. But at the core of it, it's how do we enact the methods? How do we actually do this work in a way that is considered and brings that collective benefit? So, if you'll indulge me, I think we'll turn to a video that describes a project that I've been involved with that really, I think, hits the nail on the head when you're starting to think about how do you empower Maori to reclaim their records and to use it in a way of benefit to their culture. So, if we can have the video. Himi Hia Te Matanaro is a project done in collaboration with Peranini Ki Waitotora and our wonderful Māori data science team here at Victoria University of Wellington, Te Herana Waka. Coming into the project, I didn't have a clear understanding of who was who. Past life, my grandparents, I didn't quite have a clear understanding about which apu I belonged to, which iwi I belonged to. The view of the project is that we want to ensure people can discover publicly accessible information that will help them process successions, will enable them to reconnect with long-lost whanau, will enable them to identify if they're a shareholder or a landowner in a particular land block, and through that process reconnect with their history and pave the way for a prosperous future. This project has really allowed me to discover that on a big scale, because we were working with big data. We were working with a lot of records, particularly the birth, death, marriage records, the Māori Land Court records, the LINZ records, even the Cenotaph records. They're all a snapshot of a person's identity at a particular point in time. I was able to work through and have a deeper understanding of who my ancestors are and therefore who I am as well. They want to know where they come from. They want to know which lands their tūpuna were owners in. They want to know what their hapū is. They want to know where their marae are. And they want to come home, be able to come home and take their whanau on that journey with them. Naturally I started with the names I knew. My nana's name. But I didn't know she had more than one name. I soon found that out, and of course I found out that we were siblings' names. Then I started to search those names, and the software that we've been working on for the last few years, and particularly some of the inference work that we've been working on for a few years, allows us to make those connections a lot faster. I'm just going to be taking you through some of the key functionalities of kāri as an application, using some of my whānau as an example. I'm just going to start with my koro, where he brought him. Wehi is a member of a set of siblings, so this is what our system infers as a set of siblings, which I know is actually correct because these are all my kuia and koro. All these rights are on a bunch of land blocks that he has an invested interest in. So you can actually view all of these individual land blocks on a map of New Zealand. So you can actually click on these land blocks, interact with them, see where they are, as well as go through different layers of base maps of New Zealand through different decades, which I thought was quite a cool feature. So one of the other features I wanted to go through was a minute book reference. So this shows that he's participated in a court hearing to do with the land blocks, and all the participants are listed. and all of these participants are actually siblings. Being able to connect to my whānau through my connection to the whenua has been really important. Being able to actually show my land blocks on a map to my whānau, being able to actually help my poro, being able to find some money that I'm missing. You know, so being able to locate and actually find land blocks and put that on a map has been really, really powerful. One of the features of the tool is that makes it different from any other discovery tool that's current. in the market is Bayesian record linkage and inference. Huge questions around that project because, in effect, funded by government as part of the National Science Challenge, we had to really develop indigenous protocols, indigenous IP, indigenous ways of thinking, being, learning, indigenous views on the technology and the tikanga around the technology way before any other projects were developed. So in practice, how do you actualize or operationalize the Maridata sovereignty principles and how do you review what you've done through the governance framework? We've been there and had to address all of these issues along the way for audiences who didn't necessarily understand the complexity of both the problem and the kind of technological solution that we were working out with our community. Fascinating, thank you. Now Kirsten, would you like to make some comments about leadership and the changes you think we need to have in the cloud and the sector? We've talked about leadership in terms of communities, what about leadership in terms of the sector? Yeah, I think that there's incredible goodwill. We see the leadership of, you know, here in Australia, across the national collecting institutions, and I guess within the cultural policy looking at First Nations first. But the question around labour is always really critical. And I guess as we're thinking about AI and labour, who does the work is sort of at the forefront of our minds at Jumbunna all the time. sort of similar to the sessions this morning, thinking about how we bring people along with us and how we build capacity and community. The IRL project, which again we'll talk about more tomorrow, but has been really interesting because we had a forum at the National Library where we brought a lot of current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander GLAM leaders into the room and there was a sentiment, I guess, shared that people felt that, you know, investing in conversations about AI development wasn't for them. And then as we started to talk about, well, what are the protocols? What are the things that you would either think were harms or that you would think would be of benefit to community? And straight away, I think people started to think, oh, I can do this. So, I think that Leadership for me is about, and the divestment of power is also for those people who are working on the models to actually engage in some of the softer conversations, and I guess that's why forums like this are really important, that we can hear each other. But we also need to think about what that workforce looks like and how I guess they receive benefit from that. And so I think for a long time for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia there's been an expectation that people will provide advice or you know, participate in projects for goodwill without that return of benefit. So I think designing that is a leadership question, but also looking at the state of the sector. You know, we've got a real critical issue in terms of the Indigenous librarian archivist workforce. I know that Dr. Terri Janke has done really fantastic work across galleries and museums with the roadmap, but we still see that a lot of the, you know, what used to be framed as cultural load, which has now been, and my apologies in terms of citing the community workers who framed the notion of colonial load, is still being borne by a lot of First Nations workers, so we really have to think about what the workforce looks like. I've done a little bit of research in the library sector, and we know that we really have to start to both renumerate and build the correct role descriptions. It's some of the pedantic stuff with human resources, but we have to get this stuff right to do the work. I think the question of leadership in the room is for those of you who are decision makers and can enact that work as you think about new technologies, don't forget to think about that people-centered work. And also think about community participation and how they're valued. I mean, the care principles to me, they're like when people talk about the word cultural safety, people say care principles, but if you actually think about what those words mean, collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics, A bit like the NFSA principals, if you check yourself against them, where is the collective benefit? I think it's really critical that their leadership questions that will really change the shape of what we're doing. And I think too as an educator, I'm in a privileged position and I acknowledge that, but I also feel I'm somebody who at least can put a foot in the door and open it. So in our National Science Challenge project, I could have selected any researchers to help us with this mahi. But I made a concerted effort and a decision straight away. It had to be Māori researchers. It had to be people who had investment in the kaupapa. It had to be young, emerging researchers for whom this project would provide the scaffolding to the future to create the capacity and the capability that they could take back to their iwi, their hapu, their whānau, and make a difference. And I think, you know, if I do have a legacy in this project, it's the fact I've been able to do that. So I'm going to ask you a question as well. It's not on the list. Sorry, Keir. In terms of the way that IA for LAM should continue the conversation on this very important topic at future conferences or events, often we have webinars, so we have the sages on the stage. which you are, and it becomes a bit of a listening and then everyone goes away and we don't necessarily change our practice or put into action asking questions and changing the way we're looking at things because we tend to fall into formulate things like care or a set of principles in our institution. Do you think there are any types of activities or relationships that AI4LAM should think about for future conferences or activities? Sorry, there'd be a whole list of things. I guess for me, Professor Maggie, distinguished Professor Maggie Walters recently, I was in a room with her and she said something about decolonising is for the institutions, we indigenise. And it really resonated with me because I think at the moment there's this sort of, there's doubling of effort and we're trying to do both things at once. I think that words like decolonization, you know, people can say, oh, I don't like to use that word because it means, you know, such things, but I think if people actually start to build their literacy around how is colonization embedded, if you think about Irene Watson's description of the colonial project, in your work, if you can start to understand, you know, those words like explore and discover, what do they mean from a more situated or local context and how can you actually start to, I guess, pull apart and do some unlearning in your process and then empower the indigenisation work for the community and empower communities to do their work and not get those two things constrained. I think that, you know, for me in being someone who's across library and archival studies, my doctorate was in a faculty of IT and when I went into that I thought if libraries and archives need decolonizing information technology, methodologies and methods, you know, It just frightens me in terms of that work. So for the educators in the room, I think that there's a real investment in thinking about, you know, we have a lot of people talking about, in scholarship, data colonialism. You know, we're at the face of artificial intelligence just propping up the pillars of power that have existed. So I think it's really important for the glam sector to understand our privilege and to start to really yeah, pull that apart and think about how we can return, you know, do the truth-telling, but give back to communities at the same time. Yeah, a product of North America, as you would have noticed, means that the AI4LAM community internationally, I think it's been amazing to have this meeting here, this land, these spaces, because North Americans rarely look in the mirror. and try and unpick what are those systems of colonization that are so invisible in the cultures that you live and breathe every day. And yes, we can talk about systemic racism and ethnicity and gender divisions and that sort of thing, but it's more than the tick-the-box exercise. How do all those issues, as you pick them apart in your spaces and in your places, How can you understand them? And how can you be a shapeshifter and move them into more empowering places for those communities that have been disadvantaged for centuries? And coming from a Scottish background, for me, that's incredibly important. Yes. a product of colonization, a producer of colonization, but an advocate for indigenization. And I love the way that you've explained that, Kirsten, because I think It's the white folk in the room that have to be decolonized and they have to do the decolonization. But if you can do your own indigenization, you will be in a much better place, a much better space, and you'll be able to understand the world as it changes through technological innovation and how you can grasp that to turn it into a creative register, I think, that empowers communities and gives back to them voice and visibility. That's terrific. And that whole concept of benefit is something actually that I talked to the lawyers at ANU about as well because we've often thought about it formulaically within contractual and project orientation rather than the genuine conversation about what needs to happen. So the final question for today is, and it's so exciting because I'm seeing so many projects and ideas from you, What gives you hope for the future? What do you think we should take away from this in terms of thinking about creating a better space and a better approach to technology, to understanding our collections, to understanding the need and community engagement and leadership in this space? This is what Lev Manovich calls the AI brain in a box. For me, this is the future. In the publication written by Chelsea Watigo, she says, fuck hope. And I tend to agree with her that hope is something, yes, that we can aspire for personally, but we actually need to work on systemic and structural change. And I think hope will only come when we start to peel back and question power and really consider how we participate in power processes. I encourage you all to go and read Chelsea's book for some of that critique. Thank you. That's wonderful. I think we're on time now. We've had the minute warnings, various minute warnings, but given that we are on time and given the spectacular conversation we've had, I might ask you to thank our speakers for the session today.