(Nimue)
When generative AI tools first appeared, I saw quite a few people claim this would help disabled people. As though disabled people were normally not able to be creative. This bothered me greatly at the time and stuck me as ableist. Disabled people have always been creative. Being disabled tends to make things more challenging, but not impossible.
I want to take a moment for the visual artists who hold tools in their mouths, or with their toes. Helen Keller learned to write, and was an exceptional communicator. She was both blind and deaf from early childhood. Beethoven was deaf. World famous percussionist Evelyn Glennie is deaf. Blind musicians and performers have been numerous through history. One of my favourite composers, O’Calolan, was blind. Disabled people have been being creative for as long as humans have been creative. Sometimes we need a bit of practical support, but we do not need software to do the creativity for us. It is a dehumanising and unfair suggestion.
Recently, one of my publishers had a discussion about acceptable use of AI in the creation of books. There was some rapid consensus that using AI to write your book is not acceptable. Passive software like spellcheckers and grammar checks are ok, although with the rise of AI those have become more invasive. Grammar checkers now encourage you to make your words as bland as possible, and having heard from Keith about what they suggest, I would not use one.
There are a lot of grey areas with software that do some of the work. Transcription software is a case in point. Someone suggested that a blind person, specifically me, would only be able to write using that software so it had to be okay. This made me realise that I need to talk more about why I am not using that kind of AI.
Last year I went looking for dictation software. This used to exist and would convert words into text as best it could. Much of what is out there no longer does that. It would take my words, they would appear on the screen and then the AI would rewrite it to make it better. Only it wasn’t making anything better. Instead it was changing text to make it say more normal, obvious, average things. It is very hard to write about Druidry using software that thinks you are writing about something else. I spent more time getting Keith to edit the text than I did creating it. We had a couple of goes and gave up in disgust. Transcription AI is not a tool that helps blind people write. It is a sinister and invasive kind of software that will sabotage your writing.
Last winter, we put some gel dots on my keyboard to help me orientate. I type by feeling those out and thus knowing where the letters are. My typing is slower than it used to be, but this is workable. Keith proof reads for me, reading my work back to me so that I can edit it. When it comes to comments here, emails and social media, I dictate and he types. Sometimes James types for me. I can trust them to convey my words where an AI would not.
The existence of disabled people should not be used to justify generative AI. These programmes are built on the theft of original work. They are incapable of originality or true creativity. They do not help, they do not improve anyone’s work. They use far too much energy and water. As a Druid I cannot accept the environmental cost of these morally compromised toys.
There are bits of tech that are useful to disabled people. This is tech that has been designed specifically to meet the needs of disabled people. It focuses on solving real problems. An example of this would be the Seeing AI app. This has been trained in similar ways to other AI models, although it predates the current AI explosion. Using Seeing AI, you can point your phone camera at something and it will have a decent shot at telling you what it is. Doors, items of furniture, windows, items in the cupboard and the like. It can also read text, like letters, packaging and signs. This is genuinely helpful.
Part of the problem with most AI is that it isn’t useful. It hasn’t been developed to solve real problems. Instead, the marketing people are trying to persuade us that things we could do for ourselves are really problems we need a machine to handle. We do not need most of what AI does. The tech itself does have potential to be helpful, but not on these current terms. The capacity to work with huge bodies of data has uses, but we need to focus on using it to solve real problems if it is to have any value.
Disabled people have all kinds of real problems that are worth solving. This absolutely does not mean that disabled people can be used to justify any AI tech that wasn’t designed for a relevant purpose.
