aiqbench analysis
This study analyzes how generative AI acts as a communication intermediary for blind and low-vision users, potentially replacing human assistance with digital tools. The research highlights critical risks where these systems might undermine user independence if they fail to communicate uncertainty or protect sensitive information. Consequently, the findings underscore urgent design and policy needs to ensure GenAI supports rather than unsafely substitutes for human interaction in accessibility contexts.
More Than Just Access: Generative AI as Communication Intermediary for Blind and Low-Vision Users
arXiv:2609.15696v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) tools are increasingly woven into how blind and low-vision (BLV) people communicate, not only with digital information, but with the physical world and with other people. Tools such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Be My AI, and Seeing AI translate visual and textual content into accessible form, and are beginning to substitute for interpersonal requests for help, such as asking a family member to read a label or describe a scene. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 BLV participants, we examine GenAI as a communication intermediary and how it succeeds and fails as an alternative for reading, describing, and even asking another person for help. We also investigated what BLV users gain and risk when these tools take over that role. We conclude with design and policy implications for GenAI systems that communicate uncertainty honestly, protect information, and support BLV users' independence rather than substitute for it unsafely.
Abstract:Generative AI (GenAI) tools are increasingly woven into how blind and low-vision (BLV) people communicate, not only with digital information, but with the physical world and with other people. Tools such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Be My AI, and Seeing AI translate visual and textual content into accessible form, and are beginning to substitute for interpersonal requests for help, such as asking a family member to read a label or describe a scene. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 BLV participants, we examine GenAI as a communication intermediary and how it succeeds and fails as an alternative for reading, describing, and even asking another person for help. We also investigated what BLV users gain and risk when these tools take over that role. We conclude with design and policy implications for GenAI systems that communicate uncertainty honestly, protect information, and support BLV users' independence rather than substitute for it unsafely.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET)
arXiv:2609.15696 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2609.15696v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15696 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 250 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

Cars Communicating Badly Is an Already-Solved Problem
IEEE Spectrum · Aug 7, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026