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 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

That's a good point but wouldn't it be preferable to have one AI run one time instead of several of them doing the work again and again?

(Assuming that we're even okay with AI generated descriptions in the first place which I'm not for reasons I've laid out in my other comments but I'm talking hypothetically)

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Really hard to tell. I mean there are situations in which people think they're doing someone a favour. But they're really not. Upside of doing it individually is: affected people get to pick the model they like best. And they can prompt it however they like. Depends a bit on your expertise on the matter if your pre-generated stuff is on the same level or more a disservice. Upside of pre-generating it once is: maybe a bit less CO2 in the atmosphere and a few less trees killed. But that certainly depends on how many people read those descriptions. If there's just 2 people with screenreaders out there, who don't even click on all the images, you might very well be wasting compute. And have a negative balance on the environment.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Alternatively, it’s built into the platform. So when someone uploads an image to Lemmy a local AI model does the description.

Edit: Then it could even be marked as AI generated and people could choose to be exposed to it or not.