36 ms·

Seems like you don't need an LLM, you just need a human who (1) likes reading Stoker and (2) touch-types. :) I'd volunteer, if I didn't think I'd be duplicating

Seems like you don't need an LLM, you just need a human who (1) likes reading Stoker and (2) touch-types. :) I'd volunteer, if I didn't think I'd be duplicating effort at this point. (I've transcribed various things over the years, including Sonia Greene's Alcestis [1] and Holtzman & Kershenblatt's "Castlequest" source code [2], so I know it doesn't take much except quick fingers and sufficient motivation. :)) [1] https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2022/10/22/alcestis/ https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2022/10/22/alcestis/ [2] https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2021/03/09/castlequest/ https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2021/03/09/castlequest/ EDIT: ...and as I was writing that, you seem to have finished your transcription. :)

mmastrac 2y ago
I finished a very rough, tesseract + LLM transcription, but it absolutely needs editing passes. I've done transcription in the past myself (did two books for standard ebooks with some from-scratch transcription and lots of editing) and I know the pain. I've always found it easier to fix up OCR than type the whole thing by hand because I've found my error rate of eyeball transcription to be higher. If you want to tackle the proofing passes, I'm happy to add you to the repo :)
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Use LiveText API. Much much better accuracy than Tesseract. You can rent access to it.
  - CoastalCoder 2y ago
    Anyone know why the parent comment would be downvoted? I know nothing about OCR, so maybe it's obvious to others.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      It reads as a drive by advertisement. Also, people like full local vs renting as a default.
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        It is full local and offline. I also don’t work for Apple or own shares in case you thought I have a financial stake in mentioning their products
        dylan604 2y ago
        I didn't down vote. I answered the other question. Your comment reads like an ad. That tends to get downvoted. This entire conversation about why the down votes should be down voted also, if it is full local and offline why does it need to be rented?
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        it doesn't need to be rented if you have an apple device
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      No good reason. Votes come from clueless people too. Don’t trust votes on HN
eru 2y ago
> Seems like you don't need an LLM, you just need a human who (1) likes reading Stoker and (2) touch-types. LLMs are increasingly becoming cheaper and more accessible than humans with a baseline of literacy.
- notachatbot123 2y ago
  They are also nowhere as good. Not everything has to be solved by cheap* technological processes. *: If you ignore the environmental costs.
  - eru 2y ago
    > They are also nowhere as good. They are better than me at many tasks. > Not everything has to be solved by cheap* technological processes. > *: If you ignore the environmental costs. For many tasks, inference on an LLM is a lot cheaper (including for the environment) than keeping a human around to do them. As a baseline, humans by themselves take around 100W (just in food calories), but anyone but the poorest human also wants to consume eg housing and entertainment that consumes a lot more power than that.
    - homebrewer 2y ago
      This feels like it was taken from the brave new world. Humans are already around, unless we're going to kill one off for every job replaced by an LLM, I'm not seeing how it is going to reduce environmental footprint.
      - eru 2y ago
        That's a weird conclusion to make. Are you parodying Brave New World here? Because they use a lot of human labour. (The book talks about not using labour saving devices, because that would give people to much freetime, but they also talk about not breeding only 'alphas' because they wouldn't want to do the menial work. They leave the reader to figure out that you should combine both of the failed ideas to get one that works.) We can reduce the environmental footprint of specific activities by replacing humans. Yes, we would only reduce the _overall_ footprint by reducing the number of humans.

mmastrac 2y ago

I finished a very rough, tesseract + LLM transcription, but it absolutely needs editing passes. I've done transcription in the past myself (did two books for standard ebooks with some from-scratch transcription and lots of editing) and I know the pain. I've always found it easier to fix up OCR than type the whole thing by hand because I've found my error rate of eyeball transcription to be higher. If you want to tackle the proofing passes, I'm happy to add you to the repo :)

wahnfrieden 2y ago
Use LiveText API. Much much better accuracy than Tesseract. You can rent access to it.
- CoastalCoder 2y ago
  Anyone know why the parent comment would be downvoted? I know nothing about OCR, so maybe it's obvious to others.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    It reads as a drive by advertisement. Also, people like full local vs renting as a default.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      It is full local and offline. I also don’t work for Apple or own shares in case you thought I have a financial stake in mentioning their products
      - dylan604 2y ago
        I didn't down vote. I answered the other question. Your comment reads like an ad. That tends to get downvoted. This entire conversation about why the down votes should be down voted also, if it is full local and offline why does it need to be rented?
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        it doesn't need to be rented if you have an apple device
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    No good reason. Votes come from clueless people too. Don’t trust votes on HN

eru 2y ago

> Seems like you don't need an LLM, you just need a human who (1) likes reading Stoker and (2) touch-types. LLMs are increasingly becoming cheaper and more accessible than humans with a baseline of literacy.

notachatbot123 2y ago
They are also nowhere as good. Not everything has to be solved by cheap* technological processes. *: If you ignore the environmental costs.
- eru 2y ago
  > They are also nowhere as good. They are better than me at many tasks. > Not everything has to be solved by cheap* technological processes. > *: If you ignore the environmental costs. For many tasks, inference on an LLM is a lot cheaper (including for the environment) than keeping a human around to do them. As a baseline, humans by themselves take around 100W (just in food calories), but anyone but the poorest human also wants to consume eg housing and entertainment that consumes a lot more power than that.
  - homebrewer 2y ago
    This feels like it was taken from the brave new world. Humans are already around, unless we're going to kill one off for every job replaced by an LLM, I'm not seeing how it is going to reduce environmental footprint.
    - eru 2y ago
      That's a weird conclusion to make. Are you parodying Brave New World here? Because they use a lot of human labour. (The book talks about not using labour saving devices, because that would give people to much freetime, but they also talk about not breeding only 'alphas' because they wouldn't want to do the menial work. They leave the reader to figure out that you should combine both of the failed ideas to get one that works.) We can reduce the environmental footprint of specific activities by replacing humans. Yes, we would only reduce the _overall_ footprint by reducing the number of humans.