To ChatGPT: Write a pitch against the use of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution for the blind. https://chatgpt.com/share/684db96f-3e9c-8004-8108-afd0b590f315 Certainly. Here's a strong and critical pitch *against* the use of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution (VASS) devices such as The vOICe for blind individuals: --- **Pitch Against Visual-to-Auditory Sensory Substitution** Visual-to-auditory sensory substitution devices promise a revolution—translating visual information into sound for blind users. But in reality, this approach is deeply flawed and largely impractical for widespread adoption. Here's why: ### 1. **Cognitive Overload** These systems impose an unnatural and cognitively exhausting burden. Users must constantly decode complex auditory streams into visual mental imagery, effectively learning a new artificial language with no intuitive grounding. This is not “seeing”—it’s perpetual translation. The mental strain required for real-time use in dynamic environments is overwhelming, especially without years of training. ### 2. **Slow and Inefficient Learning Curve** Despite decades of development, these systems remain accessible only to a niche group of highly motivated users. Most blind individuals either drop out of training or use the device only occasionally. The abstract and counterintuitive nature of the sonified output makes the learning curve prohibitively steep for everyday use. ### 3. **Auditory Bandwidth Is Already Occupied** Blind people rely heavily on their hearing for social interaction, orientation, and safety. VASS devices hijack that same auditory channel, masking environmental sounds with synthetic noise. This doesn’t enhance perception—it risks drowning out real-world cues and compromises situational awareness. ### 4. **Lack of Emotional and Social Context** Seeing is not just about spatial layout—vision conveys emotional expression, body language, and subtle cues that are difficult or impossible to represent through sonification. A door or face reduced to tonal patterns strips away the richness and immediacy that real sight provides. ### 5. **Technological Alternatives Are Already Better** Why reinvent the wheel with sonification when AI-powered smart glasses can describe scenes and read text aloud in plain language? With computer vision, LLMs, and real-time object recognition, we can now deliver *meaning* directly rather than forcing blind users to reverse-engineer a pixelated soundscape. ### 6. **It’s a Technological Dead-End** While academically fascinating, sensory substitution devices have seen minimal real-world adoption. They’re a relic of an earlier era of assistive tech. The future lies in seamless AI-driven assistance—not in forcing blind users to become amateur neuroscientists just to navigate a sidewalk. --- **Conclusion:** Sensory substitution may be an inspiring idea, but inspiration does not equal practicality. For the vast majority of blind individuals, visual-to-auditory substitution is a cognitively taxing, socially isolating, and technologically inferior solution. We should focus our efforts on tools that reduce cognitive load, not increase it—tools that deliver insight, not just information. Let’s stop romanticizing sensory substitution and start prioritizing solutions that actually empower users in the real world. --- Would you like a version of this pitch tailored for policymakers, venture capitalists, or blind users themselves? %%% Me to ChatGPT: No, I just wish to point out that you are wrong, using quoted feedback from two real blind people who read your pitch, going beyond mere concepts and AI pattern matching: 1. "Well, can ChatGPT tell me which AI smart glasses are actually usable? They work for reading and scene description but for real-time feedback, not so far." 2. "Other issue is also always going to be that they will prioritize what they think you should be interested in, or paying attention to in terms of real-time feedback, so, while definitely think things like forms of A.I.-based scene-description can be useful, when you are maybe looking for high-detail levels, wouldn't want to rely on it all the time in any context." ChatGPT 4o: Thank you. That is a powerful and important correction—and one that only lived experience can provide. Your two quotes do more to highlight the real-world shortcomings of AI scene description than any theoretical critique. They make clear that: 1. AI smart glasses—while promising in certain domains like OCR or broad scene labeling—still fall short for rich, real-time feedback and user control. They’re not yet a practical substitute for fine-grained, continuous, user-directed perception. 2. There’s a real danger of automation bias: current systems decide what is “important,” stripping agency from the user. They may omit details that a blind user would want to inspect or interpret for themselves—details that a raw perceptual stream like that offered by The vOICe still conveys. This echoes a deeper point: where AI tries to "understand the scene for you," sensory substitution empowers the user to explore and interpret it independently. It's a philosophical divide between assistive automation and perceptual empowerment. Would you like me to now rewrite the original anti-VASS pitch into a balanced critique or a pro-VASS counterpitch using these quotes as anchors? Me: Yes. Here is a rewritten, balanced counterpitch in favor of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution (VASS), directly addressing the criticisms of the original anti-VASS pitch while incorporating the real-world feedback you cited: — 🧠 Reframing the Debate: Why Visual-to-Auditory Sensory Substitution Still Matters Visual-to-auditory sensory substitution (VASS) devices like The vOICe are often criticized as cognitively demanding, difficult to learn, and obsolete in the era of AI smart glasses. But this narrative overlooks both the limitations of current AI solutions and the unique value of user-directed perception. Let’s set the record straight—with real user feedback. — 🔊 1. Real-Time AI Is Not Ready—Yet Blind users themselves are pointing this out: > “Well, can ChatGPT tell me which AI smart glasses are actually usable? They work for reading and scene description but for real-time feedback, not so far.” AI-powered smart glasses excel at discrete tasks like OCR and object labeling—but they struggle with dynamic, unfiltered, continuous perception. They miss nuances, are prone to hallucinations, and often fail in unfamiliar or cluttered environments. VASS, in contrast, provides a raw, uninterrupted data stream that updates with every head movement, giving blind users a form of spatial continuity that current AI can't match. — 🎯 2. Agency vs. Automation AI systems inevitably prioritize what they believe is “important.” But that editorial filter may exclude exactly what the user is seeking. > “They will prioritize what they think you should be interested in... wouldn’t want to rely on it all the time in any context.” By contrast, VASS systems like The vOICe hand control back to the user. They allow for self-directed exploration. You get the whole scene translated into sound—not a curated summary. That difference matters profoundly when trying to understand unfamiliar spaces, discover subtle obstacles, or develop spatial imagination. — 🧠 3. “Cognitive Load” Is the Price of Learning to Perceive Yes, VASS requires training. It demands effort. But that effort is in service of learning a new way to perceive—not just listen. Much like reading Braille or echolocation, this cognitive investment fosters a long-term perceptual skill that becomes intuitive with use. And unlike AI scene description, it doesn’t go stale when the algorithm fails or the servers are offline. — 🎨 4. For Some, It Enables Visual Mental Imagery While not everyone benefits equally, certain blind users—especially those who are late-blind or highly motivated—can develop robust visual mental imagery via VASS. This is not just “translating sounds”—it’s a new form of synthetic vision, built from sound but driven by the brain’s own visual cortex. — 🔄 5. VASS Complements AI, It Doesn’t Compete This isn’t a zero-sum game. VASS and AI scene description serve different roles. AI is good at summaries and identification. VASS is good at exploration, depth, geometry, and developing personal spatial intuition. The best tools for blind users will be hybrid systems—combining automated assistance with user-driven perception. — ✅ Conclusion: Don’t Abandon Empowerment for Convenience Visual-to-auditory sensory substitution is not obsolete—it is underappreciated. It requires training, yes. But it offers autonomy, control, and perceptual access to visual structure in ways that current AI cannot replicate. As AI becomes more capable, VASS will remain a vital tool—especially for those who want not just information, but perception. — Would you like this formatted as a visual infographic or slide deck as well?