[HN Gopher] First glimpse inside burnt scroll after 2k years
___________________________________________________________________
First glimpse inside burnt scroll after 2k years
Author : goodcanadian
Score : 141 points
Date : 2025-02-05 17:12 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| generalizations wrote:
| > The document, which looks like a lump of charcoal, was charred
| by the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79AD and is too
| fragile to ever be physically opened.
|
| > But now scientists have used a combination of X-ray imaging and
| artificial intelligence to virtually unfurl it, revealing rows
| and columns of text.
|
| "scientists"
|
| They talked to the head of the vesuvius challenge, which is the
| actual project that figured out how to read the scrolls, the head
| of the library that holds the scrolls, and the guy who runs the
| xray machine. But the people who solved this weren't scientists.
| They were largely college kids.
|
| This has a lot more interesting detail. https://scrollprize.org/
| gkbrk wrote:
| College kids can be scientists. Anyone doing science is a
| scientist.
|
| There are even middle-school kids doing science. Or random
| adults with non-STEM jobs collecting data as a hobby for
| Citizen Science.
|
| We should be careful not to gatekeep the words science or
| scientist. The more mad scientists we have throwing spaghetti
| on the wall to see what sticks, the more things we can
| discover.
| generalizations wrote:
| I absolutely agree, and the (possibly badly said) intention
| was to highlight that credit is not being given where credit
| is due. "scientists" being a way to obscure the actual people
| who pulled this off.
| moonlet wrote:
| Yup as long as it's done in a scientific way and published
| under peer review doesn't matter who did it - that's the
| great thing about blind publication review in a lot of fields
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Exactly. Science is a process not an ideology.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| The difference between screwing around and science is
| writing things down. - Abraham Lincoln (probably)
| hinkley wrote:
| You're gonna be shocked to learn how many research papers the
| "primary author" is the faculty advisor, that the second author
| is a grad student who wrote the entire paper, and the professor
| only observed/inspired the project and proofread the paper.
| generalizations wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42985972
| timewizard wrote:
| I completely agree. They even have a picture of the light
| source used to do the scans as if that's more important than
| the people who did the actual work.
|
| I can't understand the editorial bent in this article. I think
| editors believe scientists to be vaunted and inaccessible
| creatures that live in the rarefied climbs of "science
| mountain." Meanwhile it's just some kid down the block who
| would love to be interviewed by the BBC.
| adastra22 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Luke has a lot more things to worry about
| right now than being interviewed by the BBC, lol.
| timewizard wrote:
| That's nice of you to decide that for him and for all the
| people who read that publication.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _News from Scroll 5_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42955356 - Feb 2025 (3
| comments)
| NaOH wrote:
| Additional backstory:
|
| _First word discovered in unopened Herculaneum scroll by CS
| student_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37857417 - Oct
| 2023 (210 comments)
|
| _Vesuvius Challenge 2023 Grand Prize awarded: we can read the
| first scroll_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39261861 -
| Feb 2024 (216 comments)
| Erwin wrote:
| That CS student was Luke Farritor -- now part of the infamous
| DOGE team.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I get the ideologues here being mad... but I don't get mad
| to the point where people need to pretend this guy isn't
| highly intelligent. Doesn't it make it better that there
| are really sharp people on the "DOGE" team.
|
| Shouldn't people be more mad at dummies doing it?
| ryeights wrote:
| Who is saying he isn't intelligent? And can't smart
| people do bad things?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Are things you disagree with bad by definition or
| assumption? Or because you were told... because unless
| you have a front row seat, everything you know is because
| someone else already parsed that info for you.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _unless you have a front row seat, everything you know
| is because someone else already parsed that info for
| you._
|
| Taking this to its logical conclusion, it is pointless
| for us to discuss anything we're not actively doing.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Interesting idea.
|
| Perhaps you could also investigate the motivation of the
| people who tell you how to feel and what to think?
|
| Along those lines... how many were receiving say, USAID
| themselves?
| briandear wrote:
| What's bad about finding waste? Many appropriations are
| expired yet still keep getting paid out. That's crazy.
|
| The liberal media echo chamber is preventing people from
| using common sense. When media and congressional
| democrats literally call us "Nazis" -- it's hard to take
| any of it seriously.
|
| "Trump is a fascist"
|
| If that's true, he's the first fascist in history to
| attempt to make the government smaller.
|
| Apparently being interested in free speech and smaller
| government and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is
| fascism.
|
| The people screaming loudest about USAID for example huge
| hypocrites, or have a very short memory:
| https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/icymi-
| washing...
|
| https://x.com/tracking_doge/status/1888032469699498379?s=
| 46
| Moomoomoo309 wrote:
| The problem with it is that if you're claiming Musk gives
| a rat's ass about free speech, there are many, many
| examples that disprove it. He has literally banned people
| on X or taken away their checkmarks or added checkmarks
| to people because he didn't like what they had to say.
| He's not a free speech absolutist, he constantly censors
| people who say things he doesn't like.
|
| In theory, DOGE isn't a bad idea, but you look at the
| implementation, and you look at the moves Musk has made
| to remove his enemies from their positions, and you look
| at the things they won't touch - their goals align more
| with making the billionaire class richer than anything
| relating to free speech or reducing waste. Musk lies
| constantly, with and without reason. I personally think
| he's so used to it, he can't help lying at this point.
| atombender wrote:
| People are upset partly because the new administration is
| taking the law into its own hands, and partly because it
| seems to be acting without any planning or research, and
| seems to be going about it recklessly and without concern
| for consequences.
|
| Regarding USAID specifically, it was set up in the
| aftermath of the Foreign Assistance Act by John F.
| Kennedy, and as an agency it was later established as law
| by Congress. Trump cannot legally shut down USAID without
| another act of Congress, and he cannot legally redirect
| its funds, which have already been appropriated. The
| administration is well within their right to change how
| the funds are allocated, but so far the stated intention
| has been to shut off all foreign aid, not change what aid
| is provided.
|
| The fact that Warren Christopher etc. wanted to get rid
| of USAID 27 years ago is irrelevant, since that plan was
| never adopted and did not call for shutting off foreign
| aid, so it's not comparable. It's just misdirection.
|
| It's also difficult to take arguments for "government
| waste" seriously in the case of USAID. First, the agency
| has a tiny budget of around $50B (2023), 16x less than
| Medicare, or around 0.8% of the entire state budget.
| Secondly, it was explicitly set up to _give away money_.
| Waste is its raison d 'etre! Reports show its admin
| overhead being around 7.7%, which is very low for an aid
| organization.
|
| It's pretty clear that USAID isn't cut because of waste,
| but because the Trump administration wants to stop giving
| aid to poor foreign countries. However, they're not so
| inclined to say that out loud.
|
| It's also a self-own because USAID is an important soft
| power tool. It's one of the ways the US can project a
| positive image on the world, something it has been very
| good at since the post-war period.
| xhevahir wrote:
| It's good that smart people are involved _if_ we take it
| at face value that they 're trying increase "government
| efficiency," as opposed to, say, dismantling the welfare
| and regulatory state; if the latter are their aim, and if
| we don't want them to accomplish such a goal, we should
| not be cheered to learn that they're such clever lads.
| generalizations wrote:
| > dismantling the welfare and regulatory state
|
| Pretty sure that's exactly what the US voted for in the
| last election, considering that was pretty explicitly
| promised. I think most of the US is cheering them on as
| they do it.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| Trump won by a very small margin, 1.5%, and didn't even
| get 50% of the popular vote. It isn't a "landslide" or
| "mandate" no matter how many times they claim it. Yes,
| Trump won, but that isn't grounds for ignoring the
| constitution. There is a separation of powers and Trump
| can't delegate powers which aren't his to Musk to
| delegate to technoboys.
| klipt wrote:
| Unfortunately the only leverage Congress has to stop
| Executive overreach is impeachment.
|
| If they refuse to impeach, then they are tacitly handing
| the Executive ever more power, essentially moving us from
| a republic to an elected dictatorship.
|
| And given that the GOP has a majority, no matter how
| slim, it seems very unlikely they will impeach.
| HPsquared wrote:
| The executive branch systematically dismantling itself
| doesn't sound like "ever more power".
| saulpw wrote:
| It is if they are dismantling the pieces for their own
| benefit. Removing power from the institution and giving
| it to themselves.
| klipt wrote:
| If Congress already passed a law to regulate food so
| customers don't get poisoned.
|
| And the president can say "I'm gonna ignore that and
| dismantle the agency Congress set up to do it"
|
| What power does Congress have anymore?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Is that honestly what is happening though? Or is that an
| exaggeration and presumption to try and make your point?
|
| Fact, no one can show that USAID's more curious and
| controversial grants served American interests.
| briandear wrote:
| 312 to 226 isn't a "small margin."
|
| You don't measure a baseball game by number of hits or
| strike outs, but by the number of runs scored. The
| popular vote is literally irrelevant.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| That's what 49.8% of the voters voted for. So not really
| "most" for any reasonable meaning of the term "most".
| briandear wrote:
| People don't elect presidents, states do, and states
| elected Trump with a 312 to 226 electoral vote margin --
| so the states overwhelmingly voted for Trump. The purpose
| of the United States federal government is very strictly
| spelled out -- and the 10th amendment makes it very clear
| that powers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution
| are reserved for the states. The U.S. is a republic, not
| a democracy.
| rbetts wrote:
| Why do MAGA conservatives cheer the over-turning of
| Chevron, dramatically limiting the executive branch's
| power to interpret law, while also simultaneously
| cheering Trump's initiative to seize Congress's power of
| the purse?
|
| What's the internal logic that rationalizes executive
| regulatory power being unconstitutional with a legal
| presidential power to unilaterally ignore Congress's
| funding allocations?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Most Americans, whether on the left or right, have no
| real idea how government works, what branch has what
| powers, and more importantly why.
|
| They have no understanding of history, of how important
| such separation of power are.
|
| In such context, it is easy to see the logic. They have
| no idea the relevance, only that their team likes the
| outcome.
| flir wrote:
| I'm not mad I'm just disappointed.
|
| So much potential and he dropped out of school to become
| a Thiel/Musk minion.
| dmolony wrote:
| Luckily they explained what papyrus is. The BBC is now doing
| ELI5.
| ben_w wrote:
| You say that like 6 year olds regularly use papyrus.
|
| Despite that it was once common, very few people today have any
| more reason to know about it than they have to know about
| silphium or electrum.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum
| userbinator wrote:
| In the future, perhaps we may see "first glimpse inside burnt
| floppy disk after 2k years"?
| HPsquared wrote:
| "Electron microscope image of partially-melted optical disc"
| mmooss wrote:
| How do we know the AI output is accurate? What observable
| evidence is there? From the article:
|
| > Inside this huge machine, which is called a synchrotron,
| electrons are accelerated to almost the speed of light to produce
| a powerful X-ray beam that can probe the scroll without damaging
| it. ...
|
| > The scan is used to create a 3D reconstruction, then the layers
| inside the scroll - it contains about 10m of papyrus - have to be
| identified. ...
|
| > After that artificial intelligence is used to detect the ink.
| It's easier said than done - both the papyrus and ink are made
| from carbon and they're almost indistinguishable from each other.
|
| > So the AI hunts for the tiniest signals that ink might be
| there, then this ink is painted on digitally, bringing the
| letters to light.
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| The ML ink-detection models aren't spitting out Greek text.
| They're just predicting ink locations, which can be calibrated
| and cross-checked by manual inspection with the original.
| (E.g., an earlier article showed how ink particles showed up as
| a shift in texture.) They operate on a lower level than letters
| and words, so if the ink does correspond to Greek letters that
| come out to recognizable Greek words forming sensible passages,
| it's good evidence that the output is correct.
|
| Presumably, it's possible for errors to slip through, but human
| labelers can similarly make errors.
| mmooss wrote:
| > Presumably, it's possible for errors to slip through, but
| human labelers can similarly make errors.
|
| That's often an argument for AI systems: Is it better than
| humans (than avoiding car accidents, reading text, reading
| x-rays, etc.). But in science we need observable evidence.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| > But in science we need observable evidence.
|
| The observable evidence here is the raw x-ray data. Based
| on the article, what is being done here was using ML to
| process that X-ray data, to create another set of output
| that the humans could analyze.
|
| I understand jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon, but this
| ain't ChatGPT. Using ML to process complex instrument
| output has been used since at least the 70s. This is much
| closer to statistics based approaches than it is to some
| random startup trying to sell your manager on some snake
| oil AI-assisted whatever.
|
| I don't know your background, so I'm sorry if I'm assuming
| anything. Any chance you articulate what specifically you
| don't like about the method they used to process the data,
| other than "It's ML?"
| mmooss wrote:
| > I understand jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon
|
| Why be an asshole? What do you accomplish? I now have
| zero interest in what you have to say. I stopped there.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| No animosity was meant there, friend. Completely above
| board, I get that a lot of people see "ML" and jump to
| conclusions given the hype around "AI" in the last couple
| of years.
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| We have plenty of observable evidence that the output of
| these detection models correponds to real ink residue, at
| least on one of the scrolls where the distinct texture is
| most obvious [0]. The models definitely aren't making
| things up out of pure noise.
|
| And if they did, then it almost certainly wouldn't come out
| as identifiable Greek letters, since these models are
| strictly looking at local patches of texture to identify
| the presence or absence of ink. Again, these aren't just
| black boxes spitting out long passages of Greek text,
| everything past the initial ink detection is still done by
| hand.
|
| [0] https://scrollprize.org/firstletters#caseys-crackle-
| pattern
| mmooss wrote:
| The question is, do the researchers use the ML/AI system
| to discover and identify likely text - which could be
| great - or do they use its output conclusively?
|
| In fairness, the paper may answer that question but I
| don't have time now ...
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Things like OCR or detection ML models don't generally have
| the same drawbacks / hallucinations as LLMs for example.
| They're not 100% accurate but they also won't return made
| up results. Detecting a pattern is very different from any
| kind of "reasoning"
| ben_w wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1. OCR absolutely does "hallucinate", and the word better
| suits that domain of OCR than the domain of LLMs as OCR
| will sometimes "see" text that doesn't actually exist.
|
| 2. This isn't OCR, it's more like contrast enhancement on
| a CT scan. Looking at a the project website, there's
| other work to figure out the shape of the paper surface
| because that's not obvious or simple either.
|
| The output of this model is what might be given to an
| OCR, but given how noisy the picture in the article is, I
| suspect not.
| ctrlp wrote:
| Very clever
| teleforce wrote:
| I think this is where most of the ML/AI practitioners need to
| focus on.
|
| Instead of obsessing over other accuracy technique for fully
| autonomous detection they should focus on human assisted
| detection to improve the quality/value of the solution. In
| this case recall/sensitivity is the utmost important accuracy
| metric and try to get it closer to 100% if possible. Hence
| even if the ML/AI got it wrong (due to false positive
| detection), at least the human experts can have a look at it
| and hopefully eliminate any false positive. It also
| considerably reduce the burden of the upstream manual based
| inspection/automation since it is machine automated. This can
| also mitigate and hopefully prevent false negative detection
| because false negative detection will not has the opportunity
| for further inspection/verification by the human experts or
| trained inspectors. Essentially the AI/ML is functioning as
| the filter shifting through the massive data very quickly
| (with minimum or zero false negative), and then the results
| are then verified by the much slower human experts.
| omoikane wrote:
| > How do we know the AI output is accurate?
|
| From the blog post where they announced 2023 grand prize: they
| did a couple of things to verify the results, including
| scanning the same area multiple times and making sure that
| multiple models produce similar results.
|
| https://scrollprize.org/grandprize#how-accurate-are-these-pi...
| luma wrote:
| They also created their own scroll, cooked it, and scanned it
| to create a ground truth dataset.
| mmooss wrote:
| I'm sure they work to improve the accuracy of the output
| but it's not 'truth' unless it's the same data - which of
| course is impractical.
|
| That is, unless 'truth' means something different in ML,
| which would be troubling!
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's doing a search operation, which AI is fantastic at. The
| operator can then verify the output.
| baruz wrote:
| They said that the work was a Greek Epicurean work, but described
| it as finding fulfillment in the pleasures of life. The Greek
| Epicureans were of the opinion that avoiding pain and suffering
| was the object of ethical philosophy, which is not the same
| thing, at all.
| t_mann wrote:
| > Epicureanism ... declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic
| goal.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
|
| What the OP actually says is 'fulfilment can be found through
| the pleasure of everyday things' which is very much in line
| with Epicurean thinking.
| OJFord wrote:
| This is largely all new to me, but this section defining
| pleasure within your link does seem to align with what GP is
| saying:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Pleasure
|
| > Epicureans had a very specific understanding of what the
| greatest pleasure was, and the focus of their ethics was on
| the avoidance of pain rather than seeking out pleasure.
|
| So whether the description of the work (as GP critiques) is
| correct, really comes down to whether the definition of
| 'pleasure' used is as in Epicureanism. Certainly someone
| unfamiliar would misunderstand it.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| Isn't reading a wrapped scroll with AI what one or the DOGE guys
| is famous for? Is this his same technology or something
| different?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-09 23:02 UTC)