While this is a nice development, it’s quite risky parsing documents with LLMs. In usual OCRs, you have boundaries to check, but with LLMs, you just get a black box output. As others mentioned, consistency is key in parsing documents and consistency is not a feature of LLMs. The output might look plausible, but without proper validation this is just a nice local playground that can’t make it to production.
I get your worries about LLMs and their consistency problems. But I think we can fix a lot of that using LLMs themselves for checks. If you're after top-notch accuracy, you could throw in another prompt, add some visual and text input, and double-check that nothing's lost in translation. The cheaper models are actually great for this kind of quality control. LLMs have come a long way since they first showed up, and I reckon they've stepped up their game enough to shake off that bad rap for giving mixed signals.