Libraries in the Digital Intelligence Era: Recasting "Reality" and "Trust" in the "Undercurrent"

"The Postmodern Archival Science in the Age of Digital Intelligence: Echoes, Ripples, and Undercurrents" (Xia Cuijuan, 2025) points out that postmodern thought has had a profound impact on archival science, giving rise to "postmodern archival science" centered on concepts such as "archival memory, archives and identity, and archival trust theory." This theoretical paradigm transcends the traditional archival focus on the preservation of physical objects, shifting attention to the social constructiveness, dynamism of archives, and their role in the construction of social memory. In the age of digital intelligence, the "echoes" of these postmodern archival ideas continue, and their re-understanding of the essence, function, and value of archives still provides us with new perspectives to examine archives in the digital age. At the same time, archival science actively embraces new technologies, expanding its intersection with emerging fields such as "digital humanities" and "computational archiving," forming a "ripple" effect in theory and practice.

The article warns of the deep challenges in the age of digital intelligence—an underlying "undercurrent." This "undercurrent" is not merely a technical issue but a social and cultural crisis triggered by the rapid development of technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence (especially AIGC, or AI-generated content), and the "metaverse." When AIGC can instantly generate text, images, and audio-visual content that are indistinguishable from reality, and when the virtual worlds constructed by the "metaverse" blur the boundaries between reality and the virtual, we are facing:

Erosion of Reality: The boundaries between true and false information are increasingly blurred and difficult to discern.
Collapse of Trust: The proliferation of false information raises doubts about authority, leading to a decline in users' trust in information.
Nihilism of Value: The cost of content generation approaches zero, flooding the market with vast amounts of information, diluting the scarcity and perceived value of knowledge.
Dissolution of Meaning: Algorithmic recommendations and presets may limit human cognition and even affect the construction of individual and collective meaning.

The Source of the "Undercurrent" and the Deep Crisis in Library Science#

The philosophical roots of this "undercurrent" can be traced back to postmodernism's profound skepticism towards "reality." When Foucault revealed the collusion of knowledge and power, when Derrida deconstructed the singular meaning of texts, and when Baudrillard proposed the concept of "simulacra," suggesting that simulations could replace reality and even create "hyperreality," our foundational understanding of "reality" was already shaken. In the age of digital intelligence, these philosophical reflections are presented to us in a concrete, scaled, automated, and hyper-realistic manner.

Traditionally viewed as the "temple of knowledge" and "gatekeepers of information," one of the core functions of libraries is to collect, organize, preserve, and disseminate "real" knowledge and information. However, when "reality" itself begins to erode, when "trust" collapses due to information overload and falsehoods, and when vast amounts of information flood in with generation costs approaching zero, where does the scarcity and sense of value of knowledge lie? When algorithms determine what we see and even generate the content we view, is the construction of human "meaning" predetermined and dissolved?

This directly challenges the ontological and epistemological foundations of libraries:

Ontological Crisis: What constitutes a library's "collection"? Does content generated by AIGC count? Do virtual digital collectibles in the "metaverse" count? If everything can be generated, what is the uniqueness and value of "human creation"?
Epistemological Crisis: How can libraries help users acquire "knowledge" in the flood of "indistinguishable" information? Is our traditional "information literacy education" sufficient to address the challenges posed by AIGC and deepfakes? How can we ensure that the knowledge users acquire is reliable and valuable?

Recasting and Redefining Libraries in the "Undercurrent"#

In the face of this "undercurrent," libraries cannot merely remain at the level of "echoes" and "ripples," passively adapting and expanding existing services. We must take proactive measures to engage in a profound "recasting" and "redefinition."

From "Gatekeepers of Information" to "Meaning Builders" and "Critical Thinking Guides":
- Traditional: We provide information, and users interpret it themselves.
- Future: In an age of information explosion and indistinguishable truth, libraries cannot be satisfied with merely providing information; they must help users understand, critique, and construct individual and collective meanings from information. This means that information literacy education will shift from "how to search" to "how to discern, how to evaluate, and how to responsibly use and create." We need to cultivate users' ability to recognize AIGC content, be vigilant about algorithmic biases, and gain insight into the power relations behind information.
Building "Trust Anchors" in the Digital Age:
- Challenge: Traditional trust is based on physical carriers and institutional authority. In the digital age, trust requires new technologies and mechanisms for assurance.
- Practice:
  - Application of Blockchain: Drawing on explorations in the archival field, libraries should actively research the potential of blockchain technology in digital collection provenance, copyright management, and authenticity verification of digital assets (such as NFT collections). For example, generating blockchain-based "digital fingerprints" for library digital resources to ensure they are tamper-proof and record their complete circulation and usage history.
  - "Human Certification" and "Process Transparency": In the context of the increasing prevalence of AIGC content, libraries should emphasize the "human creation" attribute of content and the transparency of the "creation process." We can develop tools or standards to identify which content is human-created, which is AI-assisted, and which is purely AI-generated, while providing as much metadata about the generation process as possible.
  - Multi-source Cross-verification Platform: Promote the establishment of a digital information verification alliance across institutions and fields to jointly maintain the authenticity and authority of digital information, with libraries serving as important nodes within it.
Redefining "Knowledge" and "Value":
- Challenge: When AIGC can generate content in large quantities, the scarcity and sense of value of knowledge are diluted.
- Practice:
  - Emphasizing "Human Wisdom" and "Originality": Libraries should more actively curate and promote works that reflect unique human thought, emotion, and creativity, highlighting their irreplaceable value. For example, hosting a series of exhibitions titled "The Beauty of Human Creation," emphasizing the thought processes and emotional investments behind the works.
  - Community Co-creation and Sharing: Encourage and support community members in the production and sharing of knowledge, transforming libraries into physical/virtual spaces that promote interpersonal connections, idea collisions, and the construction of shared meaning, thereby countering individual isolation brought about by "value nihilism" and "dissolution of meaning."
  - The Value of "Experience" and "Emotional Connection": In virtual spaces such as the "metaverse," libraries can explore providing immersive, emotional knowledge experiences, allowing users not only to acquire information but also to establish deep emotional connections with knowledge, history, and others, which itself represents a value that transcends mere information.

Challenging the Basic Assumption: Can Libraries Be "Non-neutral"?#

Xia Wen's concerns about the "erosion of reality" prompt me to re-examine a fundamental assumption that has long troubled the library science community: Can libraries, or should they, maintain "information neutrality"?

Traditionally, libraries have been seen as neutral information providers, collecting and presenting various viewpoints impartially. But in an era of "post-truth" and "erosion of reality," is such "neutrality" possible? When false information, hate speech, and even AI-generated "pseudo-knowledge" flood the internet, does merely presenting information "neutrally" imply acquiescence to these "undercurrents," or even make libraries complicit in their dissemination?

On certain core values, libraries must abandon absolute "neutrality" and shift towards a "value stance."

Defending Scientific Spirit and Factual Truth: Libraries should take a clear stance in defending evidence-based scientific knowledge and verifiable factual truth. This does not mean we will censor all information, but rather help users identify and understand the sources, biases, and credibility of information through stronger metadata, background information, and critical assessment tools.
Advocating Critical Thinking and Diverse Dialogue: True neutrality is not about presenting everything indiscriminately but providing a sufficiently diverse and high-quality range of information sources and creating conditions for users to engage in critical thinking and rational dialogue. Libraries can proactively curate topics, presenting different perspectives while also providing evaluation tools and guidance to help users form their own judgments.
Upholding Digital Ethics and Social Justice: As public institutions, libraries cannot turn a blind eye to biases in AI algorithms, violations of data privacy, and the widening information gap. We should actively participate in discussions and advocacy for digital ethics, becoming an important force in promoting fairness and justice in the digital society.

The emergence of this "undercurrent" forces us to re-examine the meaning of libraries' existence. It is no longer simply a matter of technological upgrades but concerns the survival and significance of libraries as foundational social institutions. We must embrace technology with an open mind, but also critically examine its deeper impacts, and actively explore how libraries can recast the anchors of "reality," rebuild bridges of "trust," and reinvigorate the vitality of "value" and "meaning" amidst the currents of the "undercurrent." This will be the shared mission of our generation of library science researchers and practitioners.