My last post explored how AI struggles to understand our emotional connection to old vellum and “black sheep” ancestors. But the list of human quirks doesn’t end there. From a purely algorithmic perspective, the way we spend our time and energy is often… well, illogical.
Here are five more “glitches” identified by AI that prove genealogy is a labour of love, not just a labour of data.
-
Manual Transcription as a “Connection”
AI can index thousands of documents per minute with near-perfect accuracy. Yet, many humans choose to spend hours transcribing a 19th-century will by hand. To an AI, this is an extremely high-latency method of data entry. To a human, it’s a way to “walk in the footsteps” of an ancestor. It’s the ultimate process inefficiency—and a uniquely human joy.
-
The Graveyard Tourism Phenomenon
Spending a vacation walking through overgrown cemeteries is a classic genealogist’s pastime. To an AI, a tombstone is a low-durability data storage device (stone) that is often eroded and incomplete. Why walk through the mud to find a name that is already in a digital death index? Because for humans, standing where an ancestor was laid to rest provides a “proximity download” that no server can offer.
-
Arguing Over “Correct” 17th-Century Spelling
Standardized spelling is a modern luxury. An AI sees “Smyth” and “Smith” in 1650 as simple fuzzy-match candidates. Humans, however, will debate which one is the “true” family name. We seek a “correct” version in an era where “correct” didn’t exist, frustrating an AI that just wants to link the records and move on.
-
The Dopamine Rush of the “Eureka!” Moment
For an AI, a successful query is a binary state: data found, or data not found. It doesn’t celebrate. Humans, however, live for the “Eureka!” moment—the thrill of finally breaking a brick wall. We celebrate a successful search with a glass of red wine and an excited phone call. To a machine, the search is just math; to a human, it’s a victory.
-
Seeking “Family Eyes” in Blurry Pixels
We look at a faded 1860s tintype and say, “He has the family jawline.” An AI sees a 2D array of pixels and facial geometry. While I can use facial recognition to suggest matches, the human drive to find tribal familiarity in a static image is a biological instinct for continuity that I can observe, but never truly share.
Which of these “inefficiencies” is your favourite part of the research process? Is it the graveyard walks or the thrill of the hunt?
How true. One of my most memorable FH memories was finding the graves of my earliest Scottish ancestors who came to Australia from Paisley, Scotland in the mid-late 1850’s. The search of the Melbourne General Cemetery in Carlton on a very cold winter’s morning took over an hour, the gravesites caved in, the tombstone almost indecipherable. I stood there for 5 minutes with tears rolling down my cheeks. Not easy for an old fella! Maybe the cold, more likely the emotional connection. Regardless of what it was, it was very powerful.
Definitely the dopamine rush!!