This in reaction to outrage over what amounted to massive instant free-for-all AI image manipulation without even consent.

While the backlash against Grok manipulation had a strong showing, still… remember the adage: “Some are more equal than others.”

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    By definition, Grok can’t make child sexual abuse material, because it’s fake. Those posts need community notes.

    Post needs accessibility.

    Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

    • usability
      • we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
      • text search is unavailable
      • the system can’t
        • reflow text to varied screen sizes
        • vary presentation (size, contrast)
        • vary modality (audio, braille)
    • accessibility
      • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
      • some users can’t read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description)
      • users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
      • systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
    • web connectivity
      • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
      • we can’t explore wider context of the original message
    • authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
    • searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
    • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
      • image breaks
      • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

    Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

    • CTDummy@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Weird thing to go to bat for but the emphasis is on material. Even if it’s generated or drawn if it depicts CSA acts it can constitute CSAM and is even treated as such in a lot of jurisdictions. Though generated more so than drawn due its appearance of being genuine. It feels like saying “this isn’t porn of Y celebrity because it’s fake”, but it’s still porn.