Live data from Hacker News

A new Google model is nearly perfect on automated handwriting recognition

generativehistory.substack.com

221–230 of 328 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but colloquially this characterization you see used by laymen is deliberately used to deride AI and dismiss it. It is not honest about the on the ground progress AI has made and it’s not intellectual honest about the capabilities and weaknesses of Ai.

I disagree. The actual capabilities of LLMs remain unclear, and there's a great deal of reasons to be suspicious of anyone whose paycheck relies on pimping them.

The capabilities of LLMs are unclear but it is clear that they are not just search engines or autocompletes or stochastic parrots.

You can disagree. But this is not an opinion. You are factually wrong if you disagree. And by that I mean you don’t know what you’re talking about and you are completely misinformed and lack knowledge.

The long term outcome if I’m right is that AI abilities continue to grow and it basically destroys my career and yours completely. I stand not to benefit from this reality and I state it because it is reality. LLMs improve every month. It’s already to the point of where if you’re not vibe coding you’re behind.

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] my entire identity is basically built around [...] thinking my IQ and intelligence is higher than other people. Well, there's your first problem.

I don't know, that's commendable self-insight, it's true of lots and lots of people but there are few who would admit it!

I am unique. Totally. It is not like HN is flooded with cognition or psychology or IQ articles every other hour. Not at all. And whenever one shows up, you do not immediately get a parade of people diagnosing themselves with whatever the headline says. Never happens. You post something about slow thinking and suddenly half the thread whispers “that is literally me.” You post something about fast thinking and the other half says “finally someone understands my brain.” You post something about overthinking and everyone shows up with “wow I feel so seen.” You post something about attention and now the entire site has ADHD.

But yes. I am the unique one.

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

#223

My task today for LLMs was "can you tell if this MRI brain scan is facing the normal way", and the answer was: no, absolutely not. Opus 4.1 succeeds more than chance, but still not nearly often enough to be useful. They all cheerfully hallucinate the wrong answer, confidently explaining the anatomy they are looking for, but wrong. Maybe Gemini 3 will pull it off. Now, Claude did vibe code a fairly accurate solution t…

Most models don’t have good spatial information from the images. Gemini models do preprocessing and so are typically better for that. It depends a lot on how things get segmented though.

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

#224

> In tabulating the “errors” I saw the most astounding result I have ever seen from an LLM, one that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Reading through the text, I saw that Gemini had transcribed a line as “To 1 loff Sugar 14 lb 5 oz @ 1/4 0 19 1”. If you look at the actual document, you’ll see that what is actually written on that line is the following: “To 1 loff Sugar 145 @ 1/4 0 19 1”. For those unawa…

I implemented a receipt scanner to Google Sheet using Gemini Flash. The fact that it is ”intelligent" it's fine for some things. For example I created structured output schema that had a field "currency" with the 3 letter format (USD, EUR...). So I scanned a receipt from some shop in Jakarta and it filled that field with IDR (Indonesian Rupiah). It inferred that data because of the city name on the receipt. Would it…

> Would it be better for my use case that it would have returned no data for the currency field? Don't think so.

If there’s a decent chance it infers the wrong currency, potentially one where the value of each unit is a few units of scale larger or smaller than that of IDR, it might be better to not infer it.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't do that without the answer to who did it being in the training data. I think the reason people keep falling for this illusion is that they can't really imagine how vast the training dataset is. In all cases where it appears to answer a question like the one you posed, it's regurgitating the answer from its training data in a way that creates an illusion of using logic to answer it.

That’s not true, at all.

Please…go on.

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

#226

My task today for LLMs was "can you tell if this MRI brain scan is facing the normal way", and the answer was: no, absolutely not. Opus 4.1 succeeds more than chance, but still not nearly often enough to be useful. They all cheerfully hallucinate the wrong answer, confidently explaining the anatomy they are looking for, but wrong. Maybe Gemini 3 will pull it off. Now, Claude did vibe code a fairly accurate solution t…

That's fairly unfair comparison. Did you include in the prompt a basic set of instructions about which way is "correct" and what to look for?

I didn't give a detailed explanation to the model, but I should have been more clear: they all seemed to know what to look for, they wrote explanations of what they were looking for, which were generally correct enough. They still got the answer wrong, hallucinating the locations of the anatomical features they insisted they were looking at.

It's something that you can solve by just treating the brain as roughly egg-shaped and working out which way the pointy end is, or looking for the very obvious bilateral symmetry. You don't really have to know what any of the anatomy actually is.

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The comment above seems to violate several HN guidelines. Curious, I asked GPT and Gemini which ones stood out. Both replied with the same top three: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html They are: 1. “Be kind. Don't be snarky. … Edit out swipes.” 2. “Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.” 3. “Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical com…

I'd be interested in seeing these guidelines updated to include "don't re-post the output of an LLM" to reduce comments of this sort.

I don't really feel like comments with LLM output as the primary substance meet the bar of "thoughtful and substantive", and (ironically, in this instance) could actually be used as good example of shallow dismissal, since you, a human, didn't actually provide an opinion or take a stance either way that I could use to begin a good-faith engagement on the topic.

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

#228

My task today for LLMs was "can you tell if this MRI brain scan is facing the normal way", and the answer was: no, absolutely not. Opus 4.1 succeeds more than chance, but still not nearly often enough to be useful. They all cheerfully hallucinate the wrong answer, confidently explaining the anatomy they are looking for, but wrong. Maybe Gemini 3 will pull it off. Now, Claude did vibe code a fairly accurate solution t…

What is the “normal” way? Is that defined in a technical specification? Did you provide the definition/description of what you mean by “normal”? I would not have expected a language model to perform well on what sounds like a computer vision problem? Even if it was agentic, as you also imply how a five year old could learn how to do it, so too an AI system would need to be trained or at the very least be provided wit…

The models absolutely do know what the standard orientation is for a scan. They respond extensively about what they're looking for and what the correct orientation would be, more or less accurately. They are aware.

They then give the wrong answer, hallucinating anatomical details in the wrong place, etc. I didn't bother with extensive prompting because it doesn't evince any confusion on the criteria, it just seems to not understand spatial orientations very well, and it seemed unlikely to help.

The thing is that it's very, very simple: an axial slice of a brain is basically egg-shaped. You can work out whether it's pointing vertically (ie, nose pointing to towards the top of the image) or horizontally by looking at it. LLMs will insist it's pointing vertically when it isn't. it's an easy task for someone with eyes.

Essentially all images an LLM will have seen of brains will be in this orientation, which is either a help or a hindrance, and I think in this case a hindrance- it's not that it's seen lots of brains and doesn't know which are correct, it's that it has only ever seen them in the standard orientation and it can't see the trees for the forest, so to speak.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The comment above seems to violate several HN guidelines. Curious, I asked GPT and Gemini which ones stood out. Both replied with the same top three: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html They are: 1. “Be kind. Don't be snarky. … Edit out swipes.” 2. “Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.” 3. “Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical com…

genuinely, why is your response to being curious to ask two different LLMs to explain something to you?

the list of guidelines has 18 items in it. did you actually need them to interpret it? or is it, perhaps, you couldn’t resist a little sneering yourself?

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is plenty reason. This article is just one example of many. People bring it up because LLMs routinely do things we call reasoning when we see them manifest in other humans. Brushing it off as 'deep pattern prediction' is genuinely meaningless. Nobody who uses that phrase in that way can actually explain what they are talking about in a way that can be falsified. It's just vibes. It's an unfalsifiable conversati…

You seem to be ignoring two things...

First, the obvious one, is that LLMs are trained to auto-regressively predict human training samples (i.e. essentially to copy them, without overfitting), so OF COURSE they are going to sound like the training set - intelligent, reasoning, understanding, etc, etc. The mistake is to anthropomorphize the model because it sounds human, and associate these attributes of understanding etc to the model itself rather than just reflecting the mental abilities of the humans who wrote the training data.

The second point is perhaps a bit more subtle, and is about the nature of understanding and the differences between what an LLM is predicting and what the human cortex - also a prediction machine - is predicting...

When humans predict, what we're predicting is something external to ourself - the real world. We observe, over time we see regularities, and from this predict we'll continue to see those regularities. Our predictions include our own actions as an input - how will the external world react to our actions, and therefore we learn how to act.

Understanding something means being able to predict how it will behave, both left alone, and in interaction with other objects/agents, including ourselves. Being able to predict what something will do if you poke it is essentially what it means to understand it.

What an LLM is predicting is not the external world and how it reacts to the LLMs actions, since it is auto-regressively trained - it is only predicting a continuation of it's own output (actions) based on it's own immediately preceding output (actions)! The LLM therefore itself understands nothing since it has no grounding for what it is "talking about", and how the external world behaves in reaction to it's own actions.

The LLMs appearance of "understanding" comes solely from the fact that it is mimicking the training data, which was generated by humans who do have agency in the world and understanding of it, but the LLM has no visibility into the generative process of the human mind - only to the artifacts (words) it produces, so the LLM is doomed to operate in a world of words where all it might be considered to "understand" is it's own auto-regressive generative process.

Post reply on HN