The DPI-SIG is proud to announce consensus on the below Statement on the Role of AI in Indexing.
At the recent ISC/SCI May 2025 conference in Vancouver, Canada, DPI SIG member and co-webmaster Elizabeth Bartmess presented findings on recent tests using generative AI bots for indexing. The results were clear regarding the shortcomings. Recommendations include educating new indexers as well as authors, editors, and prospective clients about these shortcomings. Specific recommendations call for policies and statements in our websites and client materials.
Individual indexers are welcome and encouraged to follow suit with their own statements or policies so they too can educate the public as well as their individual clients and contacts. Template versions of the statement for individual indexers are available here. Other SIGs and groups wishing to develop their own statement on AI are welcome to use ours as a template.
DPI-SIG Statement on the Role of AI in Indexing (as of July 1, 2025)
Our current assessment is that using large language model AIs (LLMs) such as ChatGPT to generate indexes does not produce results that come anywhere near meeting our standards for excellence in Indexing. We also advise that documents not be uploaded or shared with LLMs without explicit client permission.
These LLMs fail at the indexer’s primary task: to ensure readers find needed information. Tests have shown that LLMs typically underindex book-length works, do not provide adequate structure or cross-references, and can insert false information (hallucinations) into the index.* Each of these is problematic:
- Severe under-indexing, with as few as 20-40% of the access points of human-generated indexes, can prevent readers from locating desired information and mislead them into thinking that omitted information isn’t in the book at all
- Absent/near-absent index structure, especially cross-references, prevents the reader from effectively navigating to subtopics and related topics while misrepresenting the focus of the book
- Hallucinations (including invented page references and even wholly nonexistent topics) waste the reader’s time and break the trust between the reader and the book
Future developments in AI may bring improvements, but at present we conclude the human brain of a professional indexer is still the best tool for analyzing, writing, and editing an index in full awareness of context as per quality standards.
*Bartmess, Elizabeth, “AI: Where You Can Use It and Where You Shouldn’t,” May 31, 2025, ISC/SCI Conference 2025 “Location! Location! Location”.