3 ms·
Sure, I don't disagree with the essence of that, I disagree with how much of the usefulness of the translation that is negated by that 1% (or whatever the righ
by mseebach 9y ago
Sure, I don't disagree with the essence of that, I disagree with how much of the usefulness of the translation that is negated by that 1% (or whatever the right number is). No, you shouldn't make important high-impact decisions on the back of a Google Translate, especially one that's more or less garbled, but there are huge swathes of human communication that are perfectly useful that doesn't even remotely fall into that category.
- henrikschroder 9y agoThe problem is that there's a trap here. You and I and every reasonable human can immediately spot when GT produces gibberish, when it's so completely wrong you know it's useless. But the article had more subtle examples where important nuances are lost in translation, and those are impossible to pick up unless you speak the original language, but we don't speak the original language, because that was the whole point of using GT to start with, right? Obviously, GT will get better at reducing the gibberish errors, but that just strengthens the trap, because now you will never think it's making any errors, because you lack the knowledge required to know what errors it makes!