Cornell University researchers have developed AI models capable of accurately reproducing cuneiform characters. These models, trained on 3D-scanned clay tablets, can generate realistic synthetic cuneiform signs, including variations in writing style and clay imperfections. This breakthrough could aid in the decipherment and preservation of ancient cuneiform texts by allowing researchers to create customized datasets for training other AI tools designed for tasks like automated text reading and fragment reconstruction.
Scientists have used advanced imaging techniques, including X-ray micro-CT scanning, to virtually unwrap and decipher text from a charred scroll discovered in Herculaneum, buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago. The scroll, too fragile to physically unroll, is believed to contain philosophical writings by Philodemus, an Epicurean philosopher. While the process is still in its early stages, researchers have successfully deciphered some Greek letters and words, offering hope for further deciphering the text and gaining valuable insights into ancient philosophy.
HN commenters discuss the challenges and potential rewards of virtually unwrapping the En-Gedi scroll. Several express excitement about the technology used and the historical significance of the text, hoping it reveals more of Leviticus. Some are skeptical about the readability given the scroll's condition, while others debate the ethics and practicality of physically unrolling such fragile artifacts. The potential for AI to assist in the process and reconstruct missing text fragments is also a topic of discussion, with some cautioning against overreliance on these methods. A few users share links to previous work on the scroll and other related projects.
Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43258670
HN commenters were largely impressed with the AI's ability to recreate cuneiform characters, some pointing out the potential for advancements in archaeology and historical research. Several discussed the implications for forgery and the need for provenance tracking in antiquities. Some questioned the novelty, arguing that similar techniques have been used in other domains, while others highlighted the unique challenges presented by cuneiform's complexity. A few commenters delved into the technical details of the AI model, expressing interest in the training data and methodology. The potential for misuse, particularly in creating convincing fake artifacts, was also a recurring concern.
The Hacker News post titled "AI models makes precise copies of cuneiform characters" (linking to a Cornell University news article) has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the potential and limitations of this specific AI application and its broader implications for historical research.
Several commenters expressed excitement about the possibilities of using AI to aid in the decipherment and understanding of cuneiform texts. One user highlighted the potential for the AI to help fill in damaged sections of tablets, suggesting it could be a valuable tool for reconstructing fragmented historical records. This sentiment was echoed by others who pointed out the vast number of untranslated cuneiform texts, suggesting the AI could significantly speed up the translation process. Someone specifically mentioned the potential for generating "synthetic examples" to train future, even more powerful models.
However, there was also a thread of discussion cautioning against overstating the AI's capabilities. One commenter emphasized that while the AI can replicate the form of cuneiform characters, it doesn't necessarily understand their meaning. They argued that true understanding would require contextual knowledge and a deeper understanding of the language and culture behind the script, something the current AI model lacks. This point was reinforced by another commenter who drew a parallel to handwriting analysis, pointing out that an AI could replicate someone's handwriting perfectly without understanding the content of what was written.
Some commenters also delved into the technical aspects of the AI model, speculating about its training data and the challenges of working with such a complex and varied script. One commenter wondered about the model's ability to generalize to different styles and periods of cuneiform, questioning whether it would be able to accurately reproduce characters from less well-documented periods.
A couple of users discussed the broader implications of using AI in historical research, with one expressing concern that reliance on AI could lead to a decline in traditional scholarly skills. They argued that human expertise is still crucial for interpreting historical data and that AI should be viewed as a tool to assist, rather than replace, human researchers.
Finally, some comments were more lighthearted, with one user jokingly suggesting using the AI to generate personalized cuneiform tattoos. Another commenter expressed amusement at the idea of using a cutting-edge technology to recreate an ancient writing system.