There's a track I'd love to share from a small independent musician, but they've decided to use AI artwork so it makes it seem like the music itself is slop too (even though it isn't) 😞
I know most musicians don't have a budget for artwork, but there are many free alternatives to AI such as creative commons (commons.wikimedia.org has lots of CC images for example). Even just having the name of the track would be much better than AI.
This entry was edited (1 day ago)
Elena Brescacin
in reply to FediThing • • •I love to write stories and use AI-generated audio to make characters talk; there are platforms (like Castopod) which have a picture mandatory or you publish nothing. And I am, BLIND. I use voice synthesizers to read, and implementing audiodramas with them, is a way to exorcise the dehumanization of machine voices during everyday life. A sort of writing "blind pride" on a flag hanging on a white cane's handle.
For artworks, mandatory on some podcasts, if you are blind you have NO CONTROL on what image you get, even with creative commons pics. You would need a human task force (not always available) or AI.
We can't afford to be fanatic on this topic (or everything, or zero) or making feel guilty who use AI in _part_ of their contents. The important thing is BE TRANSPARENT and specify it: "from here to there it's mine, this other part has been electronically built with [tool/tools]"
FediThing
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •Thank you for this, it's very enlightening and thoughtful.
I didn't know artwork was mandatory, that could explain a lot of what is going on for some platforms even for abled artists, as they may feel pressured to add at least something.
I didn't intend the original post to be about disability or accessibility, the artist I was writing about isn't (as far as I know) disabled.
As you say, the accessibility side of things brings up a totally different set of considerations, and I wouldn't dare comment on those as an abled person.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to FediThing • • •So, in that case it would be kind of background. I'd ask the AI to create some abstract geometric figure with the podcast name in it, then let the other AI describe it back, and upload it to the podcast page.
What I judge as misuse / indiscriminated use, is when a blind person gets the illusion to overcome their limits thanks to prompt, and try to create images on their own for blog or social or stuff, then get the description back, and _blindly_ 🧑🦯 trust it.
Democratize art? Not exactly. When you don't see, you have no control on images you download, let alone on w... Show more...
So, in that case it would be kind of background. I'd ask the AI to create some abstract geometric figure with the podcast name in it, then let the other AI describe it back, and upload it to the podcast page.
What I judge as misuse / indiscriminated use, is when a blind person gets the illusion to overcome their limits thanks to prompt, and try to create images on their own for blog or social or stuff, then get the description back, and _blindly_ 🧑🦯 trust it.
Democratize art? Not exactly. When you don't see, you have no control on images you download, let alone on what you create. So, the more complex the prompts are, the more probably AI allucinates, describing one thing for another.
So, you might put a picture describing it as a dragon, and you've got a turtle instead. Making your blindness-related limits more evident, than writing, focusing on your real abilities, without further complications.
FediThing
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •@elettrona
It ought to be normalised that some people don't use visual artwork, because it may not be relevant to them or to how they use the internet.
One of the things I've tried to emphasise over on @FediTips is that not everyone uses images on their profile because they may be blind. People shouldn't judge a profile just because it doesn't use artwork.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to FediThing • • •Tim Krief
in reply to FediThing • • •Epaules
epaules.aupya.org