Do you use AI tools for genealogy? Have you experimented with Randy Seaver’s ABC Biographies, asked Google Notebook LM to create an audio overview, tried Suno.com to generate a song, or asked ChatGPT to describe a day in the life of one of your ancestors?
I’ve used all of these—and I love how they expand what we can do as genealogists and storytellers. But the more I use them, the more I wonder: Will future family members accept these AI-generated narratives as pure fact, without digging deeper into the sources behind them? While I try to be open about my use of AI, I’m sure some posts slipped through without clear disclosure.
In early November, the Coalition for Responsible AI Use in Genealogy released a statement about ethically using AI to modify historical images. While their guidelines focus on images, the principles apply beautifully to written content as well. They recommend:
1. Always Label.
Provide a clear, human-readable label that an image has been modified or generated.
2. Always Cite.
At a minimum, cite the original source and note that the image was altered. More detailed, layered citations are even better.
3. Use as Illustration, Not Evidence.
Treat modified or generated images as illustrations only—not proof of identity, date, location, or event.
Although these rules were written for images, they prompted me to ask whether similar standards should apply to AI-generated stories and biographies. I’ve loved the polished, readable drafts that AI has created from my genealogy narrative reports. I’ve also been impressed by the “Day in the Life” story ChatGPT wrote about my grandfather’s World War I service. But would someone reading these narratives understand which parts are documented fact and which parts are creative interpretation?
Andrew Redfern’s post, “A Continuum of AI Use in Family History,” also helped me think through this issue. In his INTERPRET section, he emphasizes “transparent creativity”—the idea that we should be honest about when AI shaped our storytelling. If I want to honor that principle, then I need to be clear about AI’s role in my ABC Biographies, audio overviews, and creative narrative pieces.
While researching “genealogy standards using AI,” I found a surprisingly good AI-generated summary that reinforced the same themes:
Verify all AI-generated content
- Treat suggestions as hypotheses: AI can spark ideas, but genealogical conclusions must rest on verifiable sources.
- Cross-reference everything: Always check AI-generated facts against original records to avoid hallucinations.
- Check AI-enhanced images: Compare them with originals to ensure accuracy and avoid unintended distortions.
Practice ethical disclosure and transparency
- Disclose AI usage: Let readers know when AI meaningfully shaped a narrative, image, or interpretation.
My New AI Transparency Statement
Reflecting on these recommendations, I realized I needed a clearer, more consistent way to communicate how I use AI on this blog. To support transparency for current and future readers, I’ve now added an AI-use statement to my About page. It explains when and how I use AI tools—whether for editing, drafting, creative storytelling, or generating illustrative images—and affirms that all genealogical conclusions are based on traditional research and verified sources. Going forward, I will also add brief notes to individual posts when AI contributes creative content.
Reviewing all of these guidelines has made something very clear: I need to be intentional about communicating my use of AI when telling my ancestors’ stories. AI is a powerful partner, but transparency ensures that family historians—now and in the future—can distinguish between documented evidence and creative expression.