Sure, and yes, it’s literally doing what alt text would do, for the same purpose (i.e. describe the image for the visually impaired). The “style” of these that I’ve seen (not just here) is pretty verbose, so I don’t think that’s necessarily an indication of llm use. Obviously I can’t prove it either way, but I’d rather give these the benefit of the doubt, since this is useful work if it helps people follow along.
The visually impaired don’t really get anything from descriptions like “in a wider shot” though, nor is “now with no visible mouth” a relevant detail because the style of the comic does not depict any character with a mouth unless they are speaking. That’s LLM logic.
I actually tend to do these less verbose than what I’ve seen is common with others. I concentrate first on getting across the specific message of the post, and second on describing details that help get across the mood.
The wide shot is an important detail, because it explains why we didn’t see the other subjects in the first frame. The lack of visible mouth felt important to me because it contrasts with the smile in the first frame, the lack of smile (or indeed any mouth) gives it a weirder feeling.
Your initial comment seemed like a fairly innocent question and I was happy to answer it, but seeing the thread continue, it’s looking more like a baseless accusation. And that’s dickhead behaviour. Don’t do that. To me, or to others. It’s extremely rude, and honestly provides nothing of value. It’s especially galling to be accused when I’m spending my effort trying to make this a more inclusive space.
I’m sorry, but “he described the people with no mouths as having no mouths” is a bullshit reason. Just…don’t make accusations like that. It’s a shitty thing to do.
If you want to ask a polite question, that’s one thing, but going on and on through a thread trying to persuade someone else of a completely baseless and unfair accusation is really low behaviour.
And if you had been right, what then? What would you have gained? Weigh the consequences of your actions. When the potential upside is almost-nil, and the probability you’re right is a complete toss-up, it’s not worth it.
Yeah, that’s fair. The mouth description probably seals it for me. I think it’d be more useful to describe the overall “nonplussed” expression than the literal description.
Sure, and yes, it’s literally doing what alt text would do, for the same purpose (i.e. describe the image for the visually impaired). The “style” of these that I’ve seen (not just here) is pretty verbose, so I don’t think that’s necessarily an indication of llm use. Obviously I can’t prove it either way, but I’d rather give these the benefit of the doubt, since this is useful work if it helps people follow along.
The visually impaired don’t really get anything from descriptions like “in a wider shot” though, nor is “now with no visible mouth” a relevant detail because the style of the comic does not depict any character with a mouth unless they are speaking. That’s LLM logic.
I actually tend to do these less verbose than what I’ve seen is common with others. I concentrate first on getting across the specific message of the post, and second on describing details that help get across the mood.
The wide shot is an important detail, because it explains why we didn’t see the other subjects in the first frame. The lack of visible mouth felt important to me because it contrasts with the smile in the first frame, the lack of smile (or indeed any mouth) gives it a weirder feeling.
Your initial comment seemed like a fairly innocent question and I was happy to answer it, but seeing the thread continue, it’s looking more like a baseless accusation. And that’s dickhead behaviour. Don’t do that. To me, or to others. It’s extremely rude, and honestly provides nothing of value. It’s especially galling to be accused when I’m spending my effort trying to make this a more inclusive space.
Not baseless, I explained my reasoning. If you say it’s not the case, that’s fine.
I’m sorry, but “he described the people with no mouths as having no mouths” is a bullshit reason. Just…don’t make accusations like that. It’s a shitty thing to do.
If you want to ask a polite question, that’s one thing, but going on and on through a thread trying to persuade someone else of a completely baseless and unfair accusation is really low behaviour.
And if you had been right, what then? What would you have gained? Weigh the consequences of your actions. When the potential upside is almost-nil, and the probability you’re right is a complete toss-up, it’s not worth it.
Yeah, that’s fair. The mouth description probably seals it for me. I think it’d be more useful to describe the overall “nonplussed” expression than the literal description.