> The agency uses artificial intelligence and a technology known as optical character recognition to extract text from historical documents. But these methods don’t always work, and they aren’t always accurate.
They are absolutely aware of the advances in these tools, so if they say they're not completely there yet I believe them. One likely reason is that the models probably have less 1800s-era cursive in their training set than they do modern cursive.
It's likely that with more human-tagged data they could improve on the state of the art for OCR, but it's pretty arrogant to doubt the agency in charge of this sort of thing when they say the tech isn't there yet.
I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion because she wasn't participating directly in the thread and wasn't completely responsive to some of the points raised, but still, it appears that there are a few instances of difficult-to-read handwriting where OCR is still coming in second to skilled human interpretation.
If you want to provide a good faith answer at least make it English. I assume this is French but it’s obviously much harder to evaluate on both ends when you’re mixing up the language.
Which parts of "OCR" and "human" stand for "modern english"?
Are you suggesting that humans can't read or write in french? Because I can point to a lot of them who would disagree.
Are you aware of CAPTCHA[0] images?
https://github.com/noCaptchaAi/NoCaptcha-Ai-Browser-Extensio...
The original assertion was:
I would challenge you to find a picture of text
that you think a human can read and OCR cannot.
As long as that's the case, CAPTCHAs probably won't be considered truly obsolete.
What does your OCR say that these say? The first one isn't too hard for a human (assuming appropriate language skill). The second one is a bit more difficult.