4 ms·

What (if anything) is this saying about the quality of the OCR process? Especially since none of these seem human readable.

• praptak 12y ago
  Not much, probably. It would be largely wasted effort to tune OCR algorithms to avoid (falsely) recognizing letters in artificially synthetized datasets that don't occur in practice.
  • d23 12y ago
    Why's it so highly upvoted then? I was expecting something moderately legible.
    • mglinski 12y ago
      > I was expecting something moderately legible. Is human handwriting anything more then repeated patterns with lines and shapes on a 2d plane? A computer program designed by humans to assist with human constructs can infer meaning from what appears to be mostly noise to humans. It hits us hard because communication through complex language is the defining trait of our species. It manages to do what we do, and many people are intrigued by the results. Are we just observing the results of our actions or did we just take one more small step towards the singularity?
• pavel_lishin 12y ago
  I'm not bothered by it any more than I'm bothered by our brains' propensity for seeing faces where there aren't any.
  • driverdan 12y ago
    That's a pretty interesting way of looking at it, machine pareidolia.
  • jfoster 12y ago
    Even computers see faces where there aren't any. I've had Facebook's tagging functionality sometimes pick a non-human part of an image as a face to be tagged.
• breadbox 12y ago
  Only a reminder that the OCR process looks nothing like what humans do.
• NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  Several of them did seem readable to me.