3 ms·
Indeed, but there is a very different risk profile in this sort of situation. A human might be able to say: "I can't see that label very clearly, but I think it
by gampleman 3y ago
Indeed, but there is a very different risk profile in this sort of situation. A human might be able to say: "I can't see that label very clearly, but I think it says X...", and the user might make their risk assessment based on that implied (lack of) confidence. This tends to be a weakness in AI solutions, where there isn't often good feedback on the model's own estimate of its error rate.
On the plus side, I suppose in this application with the humans there's always a risk of a malicious volunteer outright lying, which presumably isn't a risk with the AI solution.
- dmazzoni 3y agoYeah, but the alternative right now is completely random, unverified, human volunteers with no qualifications and no training. While the vast majority have the best of intentions, some people are just...not that good at helping. I've been playing with Be My AI, it's excellent. It's got a really good prompt that enables it to be really descriptive and helpful with very little hallucination. It's actually a lot better at describing most photos than the average person is. Making the world more accessible to blind people is a big challenge. There are no perfect solutions, but the solutions we do have today are enabling millions of blind people to have full careers and live independently. This is a great improvement. It's not perfect, but neither were the previous technologies that blind people have been using. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.