@skua Why shitty? It's done locally, it doesn't share...

@skua Why shitty? It's done locally, it doesn't share information with an external provider. It does improve user experience.

Like 3 June at 13:49 | Wall-to-wall | Open on det.social

4 comments

skua

@Rocket
UX is improved by inter-human communication.

AI alt-text obstructs and supplants interhuman communication.

UX is improved by alt-text that communicates the poster's interpretation of the image.

AI alt-text makes it easier for the poster to not share their interpretation.

Seeing a diminishment of UX when Mozilla's AI alt-text generator is used.

3 June at 14:32 | Open on mastodon.social

Martin Rocket

@skua I totally see your point.

I'd say it's a matter of perspective. If you compare AI alt-texts and author supplied alt-text, then the AI alt-texts are clearly the worse user experience.
But if the alternative is not having alt-texts at all, then AI alt-texts are better.
Or if the alternative is relying on a central AI service for alt texts, then local AI alt text generators are better.

3 June at 14:49 | Open on det.social

skua

@Rocket
I just block accounts that don't supply adequate alt-texts.

I'll be, in general, blocking accounts that use AI generated alt-text and accounts that use AI generated images/video.

I'm here to interact with humans.

3 June at 15:09 | Open on mastodon.social

Martin Rocket

@skua I think there a nuances. There could be automatically generated unmoderated alt-texts as well as human proofread and corrected AI alt-text. The latter wouldn't harm.
But I think Mozilla's solution aims at users who want to read an alt-text that hasn't been supplied by the author.

3 June at 15:12 | Open on det.social

Go Up