Yea you could argue semantically that using an LLM to turn text in an image into machine readable format falls within “Optical Character Recognition”. I was referring specifically to OCR algorithms like Tesseract (pytesseract) and EasyOCR.
No. There’s nothing to argue there, it’s the definition of OCR.
Also, do you believe that LLMs found a new, novel way of doing OCR? That’s not how they work, LLMs don’t invent, they don’t innovate, they’re simply unable to do that. What they do, when they work correctly, is that they use already known and established techniques and tools. So to quote your top comment in this chain:
No, I tried OCR and it was less accurate.
You’re reading text from a picture. That is OCR.
deleted by creator
Yea you could argue semantically that using an LLM to turn text in an image into machine readable format falls within “Optical Character Recognition”. I was referring specifically to OCR algorithms like Tesseract (pytesseract) and EasyOCR.
No. There’s nothing to argue there, it’s the definition of OCR.
Also, do you believe that LLMs found a new, novel way of doing OCR? That’s not how they work, LLMs don’t invent, they don’t innovate, they’re simply unable to do that. What they do, when they work correctly, is that they use already known and established techniques and tools. So to quote your top comment in this chain: