While I really enjoy seeing many of my fellow man being accommodating to people with disabilities. I find manually transcribing every image I post to be very tiring.

I thought that I could at least use some sort of AI to help with image transcripts, tho, that could probably be better used by the actual person with the disability.

So thats the question, should I skip the transcribing of an image or let an AI do it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Those are different mechanisms. Object recognition doesn't mean the AI is now trained on the image and can reproduce it (which is btw why AI can still "visually" recognise what's in an image that has been nightshaded/glazed).

[–] SirHaxalot@nord.pub 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This is true but it’s also important to remember that if you use an AI model hosted by the same party that trains it it’s likely that they will pass any data you input to the training stage. Unless you have an enterprise contract regulating training use.

OP mentioned he will use a self-hosted LLM though and in that case it’s no risk of the data being used for training.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 0 points 19 hours ago

I mean, if you put any image online that hasn't been protected/poisoned in some way, you have to (unfortunately) assume it's in some AI's training data anyway. If the tradeoff for a useful description (! See my other comments about the lack of usefulness) is that an image is also fed into one more training corpus, that would be worth a thought, imho. If the image is protected/poisoned, I'd indeed encourage this whole hypothetical process, just to further sabotage the data.