It's incredible to think that museums and private collections are filled with manuscripts and clay tablets all writing in languages that scholars can read, and yet, many have never been translated, let alone digitized.
More than half a million clay tablets have been found in the Middle East alone so far [1].
And there is serious interest in using LLM's to assist in translation work [2].
One of my favorite things to do in museums is to use Google Translate on artifacts. I find it so exciting to point my phone at a 500 year old vase and read what it says. Here are a couple examples from a trip I tool to the British Museum, it handled the Arabic and Chinese pretty well but the Rosetta Stone's Greek stumped it.
Presumably this problem will be solved as researches develop better tools over the next decade or so, inasmuch as once you can point an app at a clay tablet to see a full translation then owners will seek to do so?
Tablet owners would presumably want to find valuable tablets, researchers can duplicate the data from the app; voilà?
If we're talking about writing from ancient Sumeria, or another civilization in the distant past, than everything we can recover really is valuable. A text doesn't have to be another Epic of Gilgamesh for it to teach us a lot about societies we know relatively little about.
You have an implicit assumption that the benefit of learning information always justifies the effort and time spent on learning it. I don't think that's a given or true.
Now you’re moving the goal posts. You argued that writings from the past are worthless; I pointed out that they have great historical value. Cost-benefit analysis is beside the point. But we’re both here writing comments in a Hacker News thread so the option value of our time can’t be all that high.
It's following a passion, but hardly an "objectively perceived benefit".
Except in the sense that everything is a benefit (including shooting heroin, where the benefit is the high, and so on) where the term becomes meaningless. But even so, it still wouldn't be "objectively perceived". More like "subjectively pursued and felt".
Hard disagree when it comes to any ancient text. For example, many of the oldest cuneiform tablets are simply accounting and receipts. They give a direct insight into what was considered valuable enough to keep track of back then. Likewise, marginalia and even doodles tell us a great deal about what some individuals were thinking about.
This is as interesting to me as any form of literature.
Even if that is true, how do you know if something is worthy of being read without reading it? Isn’t the ability to write it off as unworthy worth the time to read it?
A friend of mine, a historian, says that people only wrote down what was important to them at that time - and that was, more often than not, who owed them money.
More than half a million clay tablets have been found in the Middle East alone so far [1].
And there is serious interest in using LLM's to assist in translation work [2].
[1] Page 9: https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/d...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37915931