My point about OCR is you haven't done any comparison and is now making the same mistake of claiming without any evidence. The most basic one from google translate does "know where to begin", it even doesn't make the "physical" mistake, though makes others. It also does know where to begin with the image from your second post, although it seems worse. And it's not the state of the art, and I don't know what that is for spanish either, but again, that wasn't my point. You do not have a care-free option, to be able to understand that "physical" mistake you'd still need to read the source, which means you still need those days/weeks of training
> none of them that I'm aware of are good enough to deal with difficult paleography
And you haven't demonstrated anything re. difficult paleography for the LLMs in your article either!
> entirely typos which don't change the meaning
First, you'd need to actually demonstrate that, and that would require the full accounting which you haven't done (and no, I don't plan to do that either) This could be a typo in a name or a year, which is bound to have some impact on a historical researcher? He'd try searching for a misspelled name and find nothing while there could've been an interesting connection in some other text?
>translation, the state of the art that I was aware of before LLMs is Google Translate, and I think anyone who tries both on the same text can see which works better there.
Yes, do try it, for example, in Deepl, to see that it's not any worse
> no way to make an objective statement about what's relevant and what's not until you actually read something rather than an AI summary
Sure, but presumably you've done that before making the claim of relevance "on reflection"? So how is it relevant to demand this "human labor" of the students?