I have never trained an LLM to do a specific function for myself before. It will be interesting to see if I will have to fully direct the program to research different sites specifically (narrow the hypothesis down for the program).

This ethical question stresses me out less about the implications of the work created by a LLM trained by myself - the work is meant for me and not meant to be shared amongst many people. Although this shouldn't deter people from using digital means, it should remain an important thought through the creation process.

The whole purpose of this course is exactly this - we are introduced to digital archaeology, new note-taking methods, programs, etc., create a hypothesis and start an experiment. There is no end goal of a proven hypothesis but instead a focus on the journey to an answer.

This directly correlates with my last annotation - if someone was to look for answers pertaining to something they must not rely directly off the information given by a program; programs are trained by humans - we are easily susceptible to perpetuating our own biases and this exhibits itself in our work.

This is a common theme amongst papers pertaining to digital being more incorporated into different streams. The implications of relying more and more on the digital means leaves opportunities of theoretical changes.

One of the things I am skeptical about when using AI trained programs is it authenticity regarding sourcing, biases, etc. and is definitely something that relates to my topic, as it pertains to religious beliefs, ethics, etc.

I have heard stories of AI programs being incorrect about things and this definitely makes me more cautious when using applications - I try to use them as a secondary source, something to use after information has already been gathered.

I'm curious to see if my trust in AI changes after being on the other side of things (not just a consumer), while trying to prove my hypothesis with a LLM trained by me.

This specifically correlates to the hypothesis I will feed to the LLM relating to my topic - I want the LLM to analyze two historical artefacts and compare their relation to each other in order to figure out if one was influenced by the other. Information will be given to me from the LLM - if i train a program to search for this information, I will need to feed the program training/information to achieve an outcome.

Producers of these programs had to adjust their approach when introducing AI to society - instead of a cold robotic, non-existent relationship, they created a false impression of a real "entity" with reason/logic; when in reality it is a program with instructions and training.

In Gemini vs. ChatGPT exercise I asked the programs opinions on my topic and whether they thought the hypothesis was correct according to the findings (in their opinion), like it had thoughts of its own to see what both programs would think.

Increasingly, over the last decade we have seen changes in the way humans interact with archaeology - we have continuously moved to a digital medium and this has had impacts on the way we interact with history/artifacts and our relationship to them.

We continue to move to a digital platform and forget that the relationship we have with history can ultimately be changed when mediums are changed.

Humans have become more prone to laziness as technology advances. "Convenience" has had social implications, as we continue to change mediums from physical/public to digital.

Using technology that wasn't created for digital archaeology seems to be another type of convenience that ultimately negatively effects the users.

This relates to my topic because instead of using my skills to look for the information I need for my topic, I am training a program to do it for me. Connected to the information but not quite as the students once were without the convenience of a robot or even computer.