This study examines a corpus of approximately 1,000 academic library guides on GenAI , analyzing the tools, topics, and concerns librarians most often discuss, as well as sentiment, pedagogy,
permissiveness, and framing. My data is discussed alongside several recent large-scale surveys and systematic reviews on libraries and AI. I argue
that library AI guidance: (1) tends to defer to other actors regarding appropriateness of AI use rather than offer library recommendations about
better and worse uses of AI; (2) emphasizes informational content about what AI is over instructional content on how to use, and ethically use, AI; (3) emphasizes foundation models for general use over specialized scholarly tools or uses like translation or coding; (4) emphasizes academic,
library-adjacent concerns like misinformation, citation, copyright, data privacy, plagiarism, and academic integrity over “political” concerns such as capital, labor, sustainability, and security. While there may be reasons for these choices, I propose they indicate potentially fruitful areas of opportunity for librarians to expand our areas of coverage and expertise and stake out a professional claim to this domain.

Samuel Gutman

Samuel Gutman