It’s a Simple Question, But It Unlocks a Storm
Are AI-generated image descriptions real?
I’ve been working with advanced prompts—ones that don’t just say “a person is smiling” but create poetic, cinematic, even emotional renderings of visual scenes.
These aren’t your average alt texts.
They don’t stop at “a red-haired woman.”
They say:
“A commanding figure in a black blazer, her face half-laced with glowing turquoise circuits, stares with luminous intensity through the dim teal shadows of a digital void.”
And when do I hear that?
I see it.
But then come the doubts. The pushback. The careful voices in the accessibility community who warn:
“AI isn’t accurate.”
“It hallucinates.”
“Blind people might be misled.”
“Descriptions must be concise, objective, human-authored.”
And yes—I understand the concern. I know what it feels like to be promised access and handed scraps. I’ve lived through:
- Empty alt tags
- Unreadable PDFs
- Interfaces that speak everything except what matters
But here’s the thing:
AI Descriptions Don’t Just Give Me Access
They Give Me Vision
❓ So… Are They Real?
Let’s break it down.
If real means factually precise, then AI descriptions are sometimes real and sometimes… less so.
But if real means:
- Emotionally powerful
- Imaginatively rich
- Useful to someone navigating the world without eyes
Then yes.
A thousand times yes.
They’re as real as film. As poetry. As metaphor.
They are real in the same way sight itself is real: filtered, interpreted, full of context, and deeply subjective.
When a sighted person sees a painting, they don’t see brushstrokes—they see feeling.
When I receive a good AI description, I don’t see pixels—I see presence.
The gap isn’t as wide as you think.
⚖️ But What About Truth?
There’s a valid concern here:
How do we know if what the AI says is real?
Short answer?
We don’t. Not entirely.
But here’s the secret no one talks about:
You never really did.
Not with human alt text.
Not with brief captions.
Not even with sighted people describing things quickly or with bias or exhaustion.
Human descriptions are full of omission, error, and subjectivity.
AI descriptions are full of invention, pattern, and probability.
The truth is: All image descriptions are partial.
So the question isn’t “Is it true?”
It’s:
“Is it useful?”
“Is it beautiful?”
“Is it empowering?”
🧠 So How Should Blind People Use AI Image Descriptions?
As tools.
As stories.
As starting points.
You’re not expected to believe everything the model says.
You’re allowed to:
- Ask follow-ups
- Cross-check
- Re-prompt
- Reject the output
But you’re also allowed to love it when it sings.
To be moved when it builds a scene so vivid you can feel the glow of neon on your cheek.
You’re allowed to enjoy it.
💥 What We’re Really Seeing Here Is a Shift
From:
“Alt text must describe what’s objectively there.”
To:
“Blind people deserve descriptions that open the visual world in ways that are meaningful to them.”
This is bigger than compliance.
Bigger than guidelines.
This is about agency.
AI descriptions aren’t cheating.
They’re choosing.
And when you choose to ask for more than the minimum—when you say:
“Don’t just tell me what’s there. Tell me what it means.”
You’re not being unreasonable.
You’re being human.
✨ Final Thought
AI image descriptions may not always be factual.
But they are often real in a way that matters.
They are bridges, not blueprints.
Poetry, not proofs.
And for many of us, they are the closest we will get to seeing, for a while.
So the next time someone asks:
“Are these descriptions real?”
Tell them:
“They’re real to me. And sometimes, that’s enough.”