It’s that time of year for some reflection. In principle, when doing this, you look back on the whole year. I notice that we already have plenty to look back on in just these last few weeks. On 15 December, we had the screening of The Librarians (post only in Dutch) at KB, the national library of the Netherlands. And there have been various calls to the parties forming the new government in the Netherlands to do what is right for our country. During the same period, I attended a few lectures and received a very nice reading tip. That prompted me to write this blog.

Our loop

The first time I thought about the following was during Fantastic Futures 2025 (what a great title for a conference!). Why are we talking about the human in the loop when AI, artificial intelligence, is the topic? Why is it not “AI” or “the bot” in the loop? And I also heard (and recognize) (referring to a presentation from the National Library of Sweden at this conference) that the limiting factor is still our (organisations’ / humans’) inability to change. So yes, from time to time we have to rethink “our loop” (but it is our loop).

Reverse centaur

The second time was the link Erik Boekesteijn sent me. It is a lengthy talk by Cory Doctorow about the “to-be-published” book “The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life after AI”. He provided the speech for University of Washington’s Neuroscience, AI and Society Lecture series. So, in the automation theory a “centaur” is a person who is assisted by a machine. And as Doctorow explains “a reverse centaur” is a machine head on a human body. I recommend reading this book (due around June 2026). Because “automation blindness is the Achilles’ heel of humans in the loop”. Doctorow further tells us that the crazy (and worrisome) thing is that tech bosses want to preferentially fire and replace senior coders. (A sidenote I also heard Rachel Coldicutt speaking at FF25, and she expressed concern that junior staff (including, presumably, coders) would lose their jobs. She represented an interesting voice, read about her Careful Industries or use their Careful Consequence Check.) DnD_Centaur

LadyofHats, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Step out of your own process

I will talk about the third time in a bit. First I want to point to two other talks I attended recently and caught my attention, one also at FF25 (or actually at the launching event of AI4LAM a day earlier), and one at a small symposium in the Hague, at the occasion of saying goodbye to Bas van Nooten), and where colleagues from the Hague “LAM”, so libraries, archives and museum, were invited. Bas had asked amongst others Niels van Poecke to tell something about his work at Amsterdam UMC. The title of his talk was “contingency, culture and oncology” and one of the projects he referred to was “in search for stories”. Patients got examples of stories with a plot twist and were invited to select one and talk about this, ánd (together with a versatile artist) create their own “rich picture”. A method to have a perspective for action in order to translate your own story into your social environment. I thought it was a wonderful way to use LAM collections for other purposes. Anyway, something I wanted to share ánd connect to examples to step out of your own processes and way of thinking and see more.

Physicalizing

The other talk was perhaps not so much the talk but the conversation I had afterwards with Emanuele Bellini (amongst others member of IEEE TC Cyber Humanities) – and a thank you to Harry Verwayen to connect us. We discussed a bit further about his shout-out that we ((G)LAMs) are critical infrastructure agents and preserve a critical ecosystem. Whenever a country or a collection is in “serious” trouble there should be a legal framework (and related services) to (also) take care of their digital data. He elaborated about his work at Cambridge University on multimodal preservation. And I, in first instance, misunderstood him. I had a new word in mind (at least that is what I thought): physicalizing (reverse of digitalizing). And imagined all sorts of data visualizations that would in some way materialize, thereby creating new physical cultural heritage. However, that was not what he meant. However, I actually liked the idea, a nice example of doing it “the other way around”.

Recommendations

And now finally the actual third thing that happened and made me decide to write this end-of-year blog. It was the letter Cristina Zaga posted on LinkedIn and was published on 12 December 2025. The title reads: “Thoughtfully Shaping Our Digital Future”, and it is signed by a lot of relevant and senior researchers. I would strongly recommend also reading this letter and not repeat what it is being stated so eloquently. But to show the reference to avoid the “reverse centaur”, you can read there that “The idea of machines and automation serving as neutral, cost-effective substitutes for human labor and intellect is a persistent dream that has often resulted in overlooking crucial social insights and quality-of-life concerns”. And further up “We propose explicitly incorporating critical perspectives into the design process. By prioritizing thoughtful decision-making over automated responses, the Netherlands can set a leading example in AI research and responsible, socially just digitization”. I can only wholeheartedly support their recommendations:

  • Analyze the problem first, only then consider solutions
  • Develop and implement a meaningfully transparent assessment framework
  • Safeguard current agreements that prioritize people and nature
  • Support initiatives that contribute to meaningful digitization and public values In conclusion, we live in interesting, difficult, challenging and decisive times. Let us use all the collective strength we need to move in the right direction. With our own minds in control. And sometimes stepping out of our comfort zone or off the beaten track.