A major new AI capability

[reets3]

I didn't know where to put this article because it's not really a technical one, and it certainly isn't totally off topic. It's about a fascinating new development in artificial intelligence, not quite available yet, but can you imagine how this will change research using websites like Ancestry, My Heritage, and Find My Past. The concept is basically one of letting your browser have your details to log into these websites, which possibly won't make the website happy, but you then let it run amok doing its own research.

https://www.ghacks.net/2026/01/30/chrome-gets-smarter-gemini-can-now-browse-the-web-for-you/

Like with any new technology there is going to be a period of teething troubles but just think what it could mean.

Zaph

You're joking right? You want to give over all your personal information so who ever owns your browser or the AI tech can do a deep search to collect as much information on you that they can use for their own benefit.

 I'm confused of why you would suggest such a thing on a forum comprised of genealogist enthusiasts. If you find genealogical research so tedious then hire a human genealogist.   

[Zaphod99]

Carol, as long as you override the automatic settings and give AI suitable prompts you can get it to do anything with any part of the garment or physical features.

Zaph

Having been a restorer and colourist on here for 20 years, I am in danger of losing my hobby to Aartificial Iintelligence I'm afraid. However, AI won't allow you to change the colours of the outfits and won't know if Granny's eyes were Blue, Green, Grey or Brown.
It is affecting the Photo Restoration Board as the number of requests has drastically reduced, there may still be posters out there who prefer the "Hands on approach" but I won't hold my breath.
I may have to dust off my paints, Brushes and Easel 
Carol

[emeraldcity]

I'm ambivalent on AI in genealogy. There are legitimate deep research areas in which high quality AI can be exceptionally useful and assistive (although I'm not sure we are there yet functionally).

The normalisation of AI in photo "restoration" on the other hand is absolutely awful. It goes beyond colourisation because it's a fundamental reinvention of the original image - no one seems to care (or think about?) the fact that the people in the photograph have had all the defining nuances of their face overwritten in the process of upscaling/"restoring" it. There's going to be a huge problem with basic authenticity of old photographs for future researchers.

[Zaphod99]

AI restoration on close-up faces makes them all look like featureless Thunderbird puppets. It's okay for restoring damaged photographs, but restoring photo facial features is atrocious.

Zaph

[Treetotal]

I agree with Emerald City and Zaphod......my concern is that future generations won't recognise their Ancestors as any likeness in the original is essentially lost.
Carol

[RJ_Paton]

An interesting development
https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/gemini-artificial-intelligence-the-national-archives-fake-records

Not only did the AI (large language model) get part of the initial inquiry wrong, when asked to provide proof of its methodology it lied - I guess the machines are getting more human 

[martin hooper]

Interesting. It underlines that we always need to do our own research, not rely on others.

Martin

[Zaphod99]

I am a big fan of artificial intelligence services and tools, but so many people don't even bother giving a prompt, they just state what their problem is. We'll have to wait until 2030 for that.  Artificial intelligence is like a hammer or a screwdriver, they are designed for specific tasks, and yes, you can open a tin with a hammer, and you can bang things in with a screwdriver but there are better ways of doing things.

However, I will recount a recent disaster with artificial intelligence. In a news article I saw a small excerpt or extract from a painting, and I uploaded that image to two different AI sites, asking for information about the source painting. Not only did they both get it wrong, they took me through several iterations of trying to tell me where in the suggested painting the extract actually appeared, and like a fool, I was zooming in where they were telling me to look, different in both cases, before finally I decided that I was being told a load of rubbish.

Zaph

[Biggles50]

AI smacks of SKYNET.