In-Between Visuals and Visible: The Impacts of Text-to-Image Generative AI Tools on Digital Image-making Practices in the Global South
Abstract
This paper joins the growing body of HCI work on critical AI studies and focuses on the impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools in Bangladesh. While the West has started to examine the limitations and risks associated with these tools, their impacts on the Global South have remained understudied. Based on our interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), and social media-based qualitative study, this paper reports how popular text-to-image GAI tools (ex., DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, Firefly) are affecting various image-related local creative fields. We report how these tools limit the creative explorations of marginal artists, struggle to understand linguistic nuances, fail to generate local forms of art and architecture, and misrepresent the diversity among citizens in the image production process. Drawing from a rich body of work on critical image theory, postcolonial computing, and design politics, we explain how our findings are pertinent to HCI’s broader interest in social justice, decolonization, and global development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-generated visual media is becoming rapidly more accessible to people.
“As AI-generated visual media becomes rapidly more accessible to people [81], there is opportunity to address this historical misrepresentation and promote a more authentic, positive representation of disability.”
From Engaging Communities Meaningfully in Defining Disability Representation for AI Image Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [81]
The concern about generative AI's impacts on cultural expression is particularly urgent in non-Western contexts, where the dominance of Western aesthetics and values in AI development raises fears of cultural erasure and marginalization.
“This concern is particularly urgent in non-Western contexts, where the dominance of Western aesthetics and values in AI development raises fears of cultural erasure and marginalization [1, 76, 89].”
From AI and Non-Western Art Worlds: Reimagining Critical AI Futures through Artistic Inquiry and Situated Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
Most studies of artists using AI have been either explicitly conducted in the Global North, or agnostic to cultural identity.
“Yet, with the exception of [76, 99], most studies of artists using AI have been either explicitly conducted in the Global North, or agnostic to cultural identity.”
From AI and Non-Western Art Worlds: Reimagining Critical AI Futures through Artistic Inquiry and Situated Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 91 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Mim, N. J., Nandi, D., Khan, S. S., Dey, A., & Ahmed, S. I.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BD)
- Miami University (US)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-11
- Pages
- 1-18
- OpenAlex
- W4396832720
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 19.16
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Digital Media and Visual Art
- Keywords
- text-to-image generative AI, Global South, Bangladesh, DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, fireflies, decolonization, design politics, local architecture, creative fields, social justice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
