I did in fact do it, and what I got was much, much easier than the samples in the article, which 4o did fine with. I'm sorry, but I declare the burden of proof here to be switched. Can you find a hard one?
(I don't think you need to Wikipedia-cite "straw man" on HN).
> If you are referencing my stating:
> > If it's that easy, then do it and be the hero they want.
> Then I don't really know how to respond.
If someone says a thing is easy, and you respond by demanding they do it a million times to prove that it's easy, you are the one that has screwed up the burden of proof.
> I did in fact do it, and what I got was much, much easier than the samples in the article, which 4o did fine with.
Awesome.
Can you guarantee its results are completely accurate every time, with every document, and need no human review?
> I'm sorry, but I declare the burden of proof here to be switched.
If you are referencing my stating:
Then I don't really know how to respond. Otherwise, if you are referencing my statement:> Perhaps "random humans" can perform tasks which could reshape your belief:
>> OCR is VERY good
To which I again ask, can you guarantee the correctness of OCR results will exceed what "random humans" can generally provide? What about "non-random motivated humans"?
My point is that automated approaches to tasks such as what the National Archives have outlined here almost always require human review/approval, as accuracy is paramount.
> (I don't think you need to Wikipedia-cite "straw man" on HN).
I do so for two purposes. First, if I misuse a cited term someone here will quickly correct me. Second, there is always a probability of someone new here which is unaware of the cited term(s).