• @sweng
    link
    7
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    At horrendous expense, yes. Using it for OCR makes little sense. And compared to just sending the text directly, even OCR is expensive.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      I was about to say, you could do serviceable OCR on a 486, which illustrates just how little processing power is needed for conventional approaches compared to this hallucinating AI nonsense.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        OCR existed long before the 486. AFAIK it was already used in the 70’s or 80’s to scan mail and presort them based on the postcode. I remember that postcards had light orange boxes (presumably because this color was invisible to B/W scanners?) with dots inside where you where supposed to write the postcode numbers in.

        • @sweng
          link
          3
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Doing OCR in a very specific format, in a small specific area, using a set of only 9 characters, and having a list of all possible results, is not really the same problem at all.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          I meant OCR of arbitrary printed or faxed text, which really only became feasible for home users in the 1990s. There were professional, but often very limited, solutions earlier than that, of course.

      • @sweng
        link
        2
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        How many billion times do you generally do that, and how is battery life after?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          I wouldn’t do it on my phone. 🙄

          What I’m saying is that it would probably be fairly easy to incorporate an already existing technology in to an AI.

          • @sweng
            link
            34 months ago

            Yes, and what I’m saying is that it would be expensive compared to not having to do it.