Thanks for the comments. I look forward to reactions after you finish the pre-print that has more on the idea of transcripts and the secondary document.
]]>At the same time, I wonder whether the “document” is truly disappearing or whether it is being redefined. AI interactions often leave traces through prompts, outputs, conversation histories, and system contexts that may themselves become new forms of documentary evidence. The challenge may therefore be less about the end of the document than about identifying what the new information object actually is and how it can be preserved, cited, interpreted, and evaluated.
From an information behaviour perspective, I am equally interested in how people experience these transactional exchanges. How do users decide when an AI response is trustworthy? How do they negotiate uncertainty when every interaction can produce a different answer? These questions suggest that the transformation is not only technical or infrastructural but also deeply human. As AI reshapes the ways people seek, interpret, and use information, our theories of information practices, authority, and literacy may need to evolve alongside our systems.
I look forward to reading the full paper. I believe the concept of “Information Shock” has the potential to stimulate an important conversation about the future of information science and the evolving role of libraries and information professionals.
]]>I am working with VOB right now about a Dutch version and thinking about how to distribute it. Stay tuned.
]]>Opps. Thank you, and thank you.
]]>