Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

generativehistory.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 328 posts

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#81

Post by rmonvfer »

throwout4110 wrote: post #72
throwup238 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Portal de Archivos Españoles [1] for Spanish colonial documents. Each country has their own archive but the Spanish one has the most content (35 million digitized pages) The hard part is knowing where to look since most of the images haven’t gone through HRT/OCR or indexing so you have to understand Spanish colonial administration and go through the collections to find stuff. [1] https://pares.cultura.gob.e…

Want to collab on a database and some clustering and analysis? I’m a data scientist at FAIR with an interest in antiquarian docs and books

Spaniard here. Let me know if I can somehow help navigate all of that. I’m very interested in history and everything related to the 1400-1500 period (although I’m not an expert by any definition) and I’d love to see what modern technology could do here, specially OCRs and VLMs.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#82

Post by HDThoreaun »

neom wrote: post #58

I've been complaining on hn for some time now that my only real test of an LLM is that it can help my poor wife with her research, she spends all day every day in small town archives pouring over 18th century American historical documents. I thought maybe that day had come, I showed her the article and she said "good for him I'm still not transcribing important historical documents with a chat bot and nor should he"…

It doesnt have to be perfect to be useful. If it does a decent job then your wife reviews and edits, that will be much faster than doing the whole thing by hand. The only question is if she can stay committed to perfection. I dont see the downside of trying it unless she's worried about getting lazy.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#83

Post by greygoo222 »

testaccount28 wrote: post #42
jstummbillig wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remain confused but still somewhat interested as to a definition of "novel", given how often this idea is wielded in the AI context. How is everyone so good at identifying "novel"? For example, I can't wrap my head around how a) a human could come up with a piece of writing that inarguably reads "novel" writing, while b) an AI could be guaranteed to not be able to do the same, under the same standard.

why would you admit on the internet that you fail the reverse turing test?

Because I'm an LLM and you are too

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#84

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

energy123 wrote: post #28
efitz wrote: post #12

I haven’t seen this new google model but now must try it out. I will say that other frontier models are starting to surprise me with their reasoning/understanding- I really have a hard time making (or believing) the argument that they are just predicting the next word. I’ve been using Claude Code heavily since April; Sonnet 4.5 frequently surprises me. Two days ago I told the AI to read all the documentation from my…

Predicting the next word requires understanding, they're not separate things. If you don't know what comes after the next word, then you don't know what the next word should be. So the task implicitly forces a more long-horizon understanding of the future sequence.

> Predicting the next word requires understanding

If we were talking about humans trying to predict next word, that would be true.

There is no reason to suppose than an LLM is doing anything other than deep pattern prediction pursuant to, and no better than needed for, next word prediction.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#85

Post by pinnochio »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #69
IAmGraydon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is utterly wrong. Predicting the next word requires a large sample of data made into a statistical model. It has nothing to do with "understanding", which implies it knows why rather than what.

"Understanding" is just a trap to get wrapped up in. A word with no definition and no test to prove it. Whether or not the model are "understanding" is ultimately immaterial, as their ability to do things is all that matters.

If they can't do things that require understanding, it's material, bub.

And just because you have no understanding of what "understanding" means, doesn't mean nobody does.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#86

Post by pinnochio »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #63
jstummbillig wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remain confused but still somewhat interested as to a definition of "novel", given how often this idea is wielded in the AI context. How is everyone so good at identifying "novel"? For example, I can't wrap my head around how a) a human could come up with a piece of writing that inarguably reads "novel" writing, while b) an AI could be guaranteed to not be able to do the same, under the same standard.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#87

Post by neom »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #82
neom wrote: post #58

I've been complaining on hn for some time now that my only real test of an LLM is that it can help my poor wife with her research, she spends all day every day in small town archives pouring over 18th century American historical documents. I thought maybe that day had come, I showed her the article and she said "good for him I'm still not transcribing important historical documents with a chat bot and nor should he"…

It doesnt have to be perfect to be useful. If it does a decent job then your wife reviews and edits, that will be much faster than doing the whole thing by hand. The only question is if she can stay committed to perfection. I dont see the downside of trying it unless she's worried about getting lazy.

I raised this point with her, she said there are times it would be ambiguous for both her and the model, and she thinks it would be dangerous for her to be influenced by it. I'm not a professional historical researcher so I'm not sure if her concern is valid or not.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#88

Post by brulard »

snickerbockers wrote: post #76
jstummbillig wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remain confused but still somewhat interested as to a definition of "novel", given how often this idea is wielded in the AI context. How is everyone so good at identifying "novel"? For example, I can't wrap my head around how a) a human could come up with a piece of writing that inarguably reads "novel" writing, while b) an AI could be guaranteed to not be able to do the same, under the same standard.

Generally novel either refers to something that is new, or a certain type of literature. If the AI is generating something functionally equivalent to a program in its training set (in this case, dozens or even hundreds of such programs) then it by definition cannot be novel.

This is quite a narrow view of how the generation works. AI can extrapolate from the training set and explore new directions. It's not just cutting pieces and gluing together.

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#89

Post by famouswaffles »

imiric wrote: post #64
flatline wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they can create a novel instance of a system from a sufficient number of relevant references - i.e. implement a set of already-known features without (much) code duplication. LLMs are certainly capable of this level of generalization due to their huge non-relevant reference set. Whether they can expand beyond that into something truly novel from a feature/functionality standpoint is a whole other, and less…

Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the theory of relativity? How about advance our understanding of the universe? Teach us about flight dynamics and take us into space? Invent the Turing machine, Von Neumann architecture, transistors? If yes, why aren't we seeing glimpses of such genius today? If we'v…

>Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the theory of relativity? How about advance our understanding of the universe? Teach us about flight dynamics and take us into space? Invent the Turing machine, Von Neumann architecture, transistors?

Only a small percentage of humanity are/were capable of doing any of these. And they tend to be the best of the best in their respective fields.

>If yes, why aren't we seeing glimpses of such genius today?

Again, most humans can't actually do any of the things you just listed. Only our most intelligent can. LLMs are great, but they're not (yet?) as capable as our best and brightest (and in many ways, lag behind the average human) in most respects, so why would you expect such genius now ?

Re: A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

#90

Post by CamperBob2 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #84
energy123 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting the next word requires understanding, they're not separate things. If you don't know what comes after the next word, then you don't know what the next word should be. So the task implicitly forces a more long-horizon understanding of the future sequence.

> Predicting the next word requires understanding If we were talking about humans trying to predict next word, that would be true. There is no reason to suppose than an LLM is doing anything other than deep pattern prediction pursuant to, and no better than needed for, next word prediction.

How'd you do at the International Math Olympiad this year?
Post reply on HN