3 ms·
"...in ten years time." To quote XKCD's translation (sic!), "we haven't finished inventing it yet, but when we do, it'll be awesome." https://xkcd.com/678/ http
by Piskvorrr 11y ago
"...in ten years time." To quote XKCD's translation (sic!), "we haven't finished inventing it yet, but when we do, it'll be awesome." https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/
This is the same tired old story that keeps on making rounds for the sixth decade now - "machine translation kind of sucks now, but it will be solved within the next decade!!!!!!!!1!" This is still very much a current paper - note the publication date: http://www.mt-archive.info/Bar-Hillel-1951.pdf http://www.mt-archive.info/Bar-Hillel-1951.pdf
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- astrodust 11y agoTo be fair, translation today is significantly better than sixty years ago. For one, the output is often usable as-is, and with some tweaking is even better. I've known several people that have learned English by leaning heavily on automated translation until they got a firmer handle on it. If you tried that in the 1970s you'd still be trying to figure out what the word "the" means.
- Piskvorrr 11y agoSure, it's better - in the "pre-MT" and "post-MT" systems (although it's called "crowdsourcing" these days). For standalone MT, the output is just-about-recognizable; nowhere near the babel-fish-like gadget WSJ is presenting as "just about to happen."