@FediThing This matter of "AI slop vs. independent artists", including musicians and even podcasters, is my own dilemma.
I love to write stories and use AI-generated audio to make characters talk; there are platforms (like Castopod) which have a picture mandatory or you publish nothing. And I am, BLIND. I use voice synthesizers to read, and implementing audiodramas with them, is a way to exorcise the dehumanization of machine voices during everyday life. A sort of writing "blind pride" on a flag hanging on a white cane's handle.
For artworks, mandatory on some podcasts, if you are blind you have NO CONTROL on what image you get, even with creative commons pics. You would need a human task force (not always available) or AI.
We can't afford to be fanatic on this topic (or everything, or zero) or making feel guilty who use AI in _part_ of their contents. The important thing is BE TRANSPARENT and specify it: "from here to there it's mine, this other part has been electronically built with [tool/tools]"

@elettrona

Thank you for this, it's very enlightening and thoughtful.

I didn't know artwork was mandatory, that could explain a lot of what is going on for some platforms even for abled artists, as they may feel pressured to add at least something.

I didn't intend the original post to be about disability or accessibility, the artist I was writing about isn't (as far as I know) disabled.

As you say, the accessibility side of things brings up a totally different set of considerations, and I wouldn't dare comment on those as an abled person.

@FediThing With what I say, however, I'm firmly against indiscriminated AI use. Given that's a nonsense that @Castopod forces me to place a pic on podcast (why should I care about pics if I'm BLIND and want to create audio content?) In that case, pic should be an optional, last-priority subject. Sighted subscribers of course wouldn't subscribe on the podcast thanks to the pic. Yes, it attracts, but then?
So, in that case it would be kind of background. I'd ask the AI to create some abstract geometric figure with the podcast name in it, then let the other AI describe it back, and upload it to the podcast page.
What I judge as misuse / indiscriminated use, is when a blind person gets the illusion to overcome their limits thanks to prompt, and try to create images on their own for blog or social or stuff, then get the description back, and _blindly_ 🧑‍🦯 trust it.
Democratize art? Not exactly. When you don't see, you have no control on images you download, let alone on what you create. So, the more complex the prompts are, the more probably AI allucinates, describing one thing for another.
So, you might put a picture describing it as a dragon, and you've got a turtle instead. Making your blindness-related limits more evident, than writing, focusing on your real abilities, without further complications.

@elettrona @FediThing Castopod asks you to add a picture because if you don't your RSS feed will be denied everywhere.
We added transcription from day one and advocated so that it becomes accepted everywhere.
We gave talks about inclusion and accessibility.
We spend time to provide Castopod ti the community for free, it does not pay our rent.
So please, please, don't rant for something we are not responsible for.
That kind of comments is very discouraging.