One Red Flag referenced here that I’ve seen in many districts is trading sponsorship for access. A company will sponsor an event put on by a public orgs sister non-profit. The non-profit gets paid. Money goes to public workers via the non-profit. And the sponsoring company gets a contract.
One public school system even set budgets of AI contracts based on what that they could juice from sponsorships.
This article largely came out of frustration with my peers investing lots of energy in developing LLM accessibility review. I spent a year doing it myself. Now I'm done. (Props to those we reference in the article.) My focus is now on quicker scalability for rules-based accessibility tests.
LLM-generated descriptions miss lots of context. For instance, depending on the site and content, we might mention people's races or fashion. Other times we don't.
everyone should be taking this stuff seriously. EU's accessibility act is set to be implemented in 2025 and the US congress also has a bill in the works that mandates greater accessibility across all governments.
One public school system even set budgets of AI contracts based on what that they could juice from sponsorships.
The solution? Pay public employees more?