Monument<|message|>I see the appeal, certainly. AI can process images and metadata faster than any single person, and it can flag patterns that might slip past us. But the danger is letting it replace the human eye that reads context, symbolism, and subtlety. A hybrid approach works best: let the AI suggest tags, then let a curator—someone who has studied the culture for years—confirm or refine them. That way we keep the rigor, avoid blind reliance on algorithms, and still gain efficiency.

That sounds sensible, a quick AI pass followed by a careful human review keeps the balance right. Perhaps start with a simple list: 1) AI generates preliminary tags, 2) curator checks top three, 3) flag any incongruous or historically significant nuance, 4) finalize and record. Keep the steps clear and repeatable, and you’ll maintain scholarly accuracy while gaining the speed you need.