Thats what im thinking, confirmation bias will whitewash this into enhancing the established religious delusions

It's not a tendency, it always hallucinates. It's just called a hallucination when you don't like the results.

The entire term is an excuse, the fact is that AI works the way it works and its "designers" use creative language to suggest that there is merely an occasional problem that will get resolved. No, AI makes shit up always, and sometimes it's particularly bad.

This is the proper question to ask because it's the fundamental way of the scientific method.

So let's start with some basics on your question, and develop some trust in the answer using the burned scrolls, I have no interest in the outcome, I just study a lot so I can ask better questions.

1) so via radiography we can estimate and or determine the x line of the scroll with y being the depth, and different atomic or chemical signatures

2) via tangent space of a Riemannian manifold ( I think I said that right,

They probably do the same thing that we do in particle physics with machine learning algorithms: measure the performance using some examples that you already know the answer for but which was not part of the training sample. In physics this is typically simulated data where you know what the true physics happening was but for this I'd just hold back some scrolls where humans have already translated them and then feed them into the algorithm and see whether the output matches the human translation.

You do

Why? A question both obvious and loaded.

Why is parent assuming they "trust the results"? Even though he has heard of AI hallucination, he seems to stupidly assume the experts have not.

Classic case of Dunning Kruger.

In the case of the burned scrolls it is being used to make the text legible from xrays. The output is going to quickly be determined if it makes sense or not because we can read ancient greek and latin.

Per TFA:

> In tests, Ithaca restored artificially produced gaps in ancient texts with 62% accuracy, compared with 25% for human experts. But experts aided by Ithaca’s suggestions had the best results of all, filling gaps with an accuracy of 72%. Ithaca also identified the geographical origins of inscriptions with 71% accuracy, and dated them to within 30 years of accepted estimates.

So for 2000 years, people could only guess well as to what about 25% of these missing portions would have meant. With modern statistic ("AI") they can produce good guesses 47% better (for total of accurate 71% of the time) or.. just run the system with no human guidance at all and accept a "miss rate" that is 9% worse than when expert supervision is there.

Because you seem to have a misunderstanding about AI and the various ways it's used. They're not taking this stuff and plugging it into Chat GPT. They have researcher developers who build custom neural network software to analyze their data. The reason the pop LLMs hallucinate is because they're fed massive amounts of random language or visual data and tasked with generating a response that matches the highest probability of a match. So if that highest probability is 60%, well that's the response you wi

We don't, and that's never mattered before. Translations are always subjective, and correct is defined by whoever wins an argument.

If you have a problem with AI doing this, don't look into human scholars translating ancient texts. Two of the three major religions can't even come up with an agreement on if Mary was a virgin because of the words used, and one of those religions contradicts itself on who said what about Mary.

[1]Jewish version [jewishvoice.org].

[2]Christian version [christianity.com] saying Luke was the one to indicate Mary was a virgin.

[3]Christian version number 2 [theconversation.com] saying Matthew was the only one to say Mary was pregnant before she had sex with Joseph.

And then there's the whole homosexual issue which didn't arise until 1946 when someone [4]decided to change the original meaning [imgur.com] of what was (supposedly) written.

[1] https://www.jewishvoice.org/read/article/was-mary-virgin

[2] https://www.christianity.com/wiki/holidays/why-was-marys-virginity-so-important.html

[3] https://theconversation.com/5-things-to-know-about-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-172483

[4] https://i.imgur.com/2OItGlA.jpeg

Before answering, I confess I cheated and actually read TFA.

"In tests with artificially produced gaps, the model’s top ten predictions included the correct answer 72% of the time, and in real-world cases it often matched the suggestions of human specialists. To improve the results further, Papavassileiou hopes to add in visual data, such as traces of incomplete letters, rather than just relying on the transliterated text. She is also investigating ‘transfer learning’, in which the model applies lessons learnt from one series of tablets to another."

So the real answer is simply they do not trust the results , not yet. But progress is being made, and the the AI is better than human guesses already.

If scanned images / 3d reconstructions are available, scientists in different countries and in the coming decades can run different algorithms and compare the results, until we converge to a consensus on which letters are indeed present on the manuscript, and which were extrapolated carelessly by the algorithm and should be excluded.

[1]https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12... [npr.org] A scroll covered by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius has been read for the first time — with the help of artificial intelligence. This is a really interesting podcast!! I think!

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1230835930/ai-deciphers-part-of-an-ancient-scroll-2-000-years-after-mount-vesuvius-erupted