3 ms·
I've been surprised so far by llms capability, so I hope it continues. On the human in loop side, it's really use case specific. For a lot of my company's work
by themanmaran 2y ago
I've been surprised so far by llms capability, so I hope it continues.
On the human in loop side, it's really use case specific. For a lot of my company's work, it's focused on getting trends from large sets of documents.
Ex: "categorize building permits by municipality". If the OCR was wrong on a few documents, it's still going to capture the general trend. If the use case was "pull bank account info from wire forms" I would want a lot more double checking. But that said, humans also have a tendency to transpose numbers incorrectly.
- 8organicbits 2y agoHmm, sounds like different goals. I don't work on that project any longer but it was a very small set of documents and they needed to be transcribed perfectly. Every typo in the original needed to be preserved. That said, there's huge value in lossy transcription elsewhere, as long as you can account for the errors they introduce.
- raisedbyninjas 2y agoOur human in the loop process with traditional OCR uses confidence scores from regions of interest and the page coordinates to speed-up the review process. I wish the LLM could provide that, but both seem far off on the horizon.