Comment by AdieuToLogic 6 months ago
> I don’t think I believe that OCR can’t do it but random humans can
Considering the people involved are experts in their field, are certainly aware of OCR capabilities, and have publicized a need thusly:
... the National Archives is looking for volunteers who can
help transcribe and organize its many handwritten records ...
> OCR is VERY good
> No. Sign up and look at the current missions. A lot of what they want transcribed is totally straightforward to OCR --- not even LLM, OCR. Whatever's going on, and I'm not second-guessing them, a pretty big chunk of their problem appears to be well within the state of the art.
If it's that easy, then do it and be the hero they want.
Or maybe, just maybe, "a pretty big chunk of their problem appears to be well within the state of the art" is a sweeping generalization lacking understanding of the difficulties involved.
Go ahead and find something hard, and relate back the steps you took to find it.
> Go ahead and find something hard, and relate back the steps you took to find it.
This is a strawman[0] argument. You proclaimed:
A lot of what they want transcribed is totally
straightforward to OCR
If it's that easy, then do it and be the hero
they want.
Also, you seem to have taken issue with the phrase “random humans” because you’re confused at what’s being done here. It is random humans. Non experts.
Experts are asking for the help of non experts.
> Anyone with an internet connection can volunteer to transcribe historical documents and help make the archives’ digital catalog more accessible
> Also, you seem to have taken issue with the phrase “random humans” because you’re confused at what’s being done here. It is random humans. Non experts.
I'm largely aligned with your interpretation of "random humans", with a clarification below. The experts I was referencing are the ones you identified:
> Experts are asking for the help of non experts.
The call to action by the archivists (experts), IMHO, has the intent to engage people with interest in the topic. So not really random from a mathematical definition, but perhaps better thought of as "unknown interested parties."
Granted, this is my unsubstantiated opinion.
> There are conceivable reasons why they may be telling a half truth here. Just engaging the public is a worthy goal here.
Asserting an ulterior motive without supporting proof is to engage in conspiracy theories.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.[0]
It doesn't look like a cigar (very tricky documents) though. Hence the skepticism.
No. Sign up and look at the current missions. A lot of what they want transcribed is totally straightforward to OCR --- not even LLM, OCR. Whatever's going on, and I'm not second-guessing them, a pretty big chunk of their problem appears to be well within the state of the art. The appeal to authority isn't going to play here, because you can just click through to the archives and see what they're trying to figure out.