5 ms·

> I wanted to use a more efficient and accurate translation tool ChatGPT more accurate than Google Translate? I find that hard to believe. The obvious solution

> I wanted to use a more efficient and accurate translation tool ChatGPT more accurate than Google Translate? I find that hard to believe. The obvious solution to make the process more efficient would be to use the Translate API. Seems like something you could script in a couple of hours, tops.

letmevoteplease 4y ago
For Japanese, at least, ChatGPT is better than Google Translate because it considers the context of each sentence, while Google Translate translates each sentence independently. DeepL is still the best, though.
hombre_fatal 4y ago
Google Translate is surprisingly bad when you try to do real work with it, especially its community verified corrections which are guaranteed to be worse. In Spanish, community verified translations never have accents. Chatgpt and DeepL are both better. They understand context much better and more likely use real expressions over literal translations.
- potatolicious 4y ago
  +1, especially when it comes to localizing UI text. The trick with UI text is that in many languages it's not grammatically correct to begin with (GUI labels are rarely expressed in full sentences), and the terseness introduces vast amounts of ambiguity in meaning. Like take a "Submit" button - it can mean anything from "send this request in" to "grovel in front of me" depending on context. Human localizers struggle with this, especially when the source files they're provided with do not have sufficient context (and they cannot see the GUI in-context) to infer meaning. Existing translation engines are worse.
  - koreth1 4y ago
    > Human localizers struggle with this, especially when the source files they're provided with do not have sufficient context (and they cannot see the GUI in-context) to infer meaning. And sometimes the lack of context is self-inflicted. My company just started evaluating translation services and as part of that process, we sent some of our strings to the candidate companies. Many of our strings are in Java properties files, which we've annotated with comments to give context. Yesterday I got a request back from one of them: please convert the strings to a JSON file. Which is on some level the equivalent of, please strip out all the comments you added for our benefit. Yes, I get that our strings will be fed into translation software. But still, we made the effort to give them context and they told us to get rid of it.
- holoduke 4y ago
  We are processing about 50 million words per day for about 12 languages. I can tell from experience that google translate is giving the best results. It similarly prices to deepl. We explored the idea of using chatgpt, but its extremely expensive compared to google/deepl 500.000 words for +-20 dollars versus a lot more with chatgpt.
  - petodo 4y ago
    That's first time I hear someone would be praising Gtranslate, while they improved recently and they are catching up with DeepL, DeepL is still by far superior to GT, everything else is in completely different league (i don't have experience with ChstGPT). Btw. Reverso should be using same neural model as DeepL and provides also interesting results, though both DeepL and GT are superior to Reverso.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    A translation tool like PoEdit can mass translate a bunch of text strings using a few different services. It's the simplest demonstration of the lower quality of Google Translate vs. DeepL at least for shorter strings. GTranslate rarely knows how a native speaker would say short phrases and concepts, preferring to translate them literally. I'm surprised you haven't run into problems with community verified translations. They're so predictably poor that I'd stop using GTranslate just to avoid that.
lowefk 4y ago
I found that GPT-3 is much better than DeepL when given high-quality examples as a prompt. GPT-3 knows more about the world, so it can translate proper nouns and slang used in specific communities better than DeepL.
shagie 4y ago
Consider: Translate the following json localization into French. Leave json keys untouched. ### { "button name": "Click here", "instructions":"press the \"${button name}\" button" } ### Which returned: { "button name": "Cliquez ici", "instructions":"appuyez sur le bouton \"${button name}\"" } Note that the button name remains unchanged. This is something that Google translate would do poorly.
- hrpnk 4y ago
  Native Google Translate may have problems here. However, when integrated into a Localization Management System (LMS) that is aware of common placeholder formats, Google Translate/DeepL are not expected to destroy the original translation text. Even if they do, consistency checks of the LMS is expected to verify that all placeholders from the source copy are present in its translation.
qt31415926 4y ago
For Vietnamese, ChatGPT has been much more effective for me. You can tell it very specific things to modify as well as give it additional context which you can't really do with Google Translate. Especially with pronouns, google will just translate everyone as 'uncle' or 'aunt' or 'grandma' or 'grandpa' and it'll get genders wrong all the time, which you can correct for with ChatGPT.
famouswaffles 4y ago
Bilingual Large Language Models are much better than the ilk of google translate. https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translations https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati...

letmevoteplease 4y ago

For Japanese, at least, ChatGPT is better than Google Translate because it considers the context of each sentence, while Google Translate translates each sentence independently. DeepL is still the best, though.

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Google Translate is surprisingly bad when you try to do real work with it, especially its community verified corrections which are guaranteed to be worse. In Spanish, community verified translations never have accents. Chatgpt and DeepL are both better. They understand context much better and more likely use real expressions over literal translations.

potatolicious 4y ago
+1, especially when it comes to localizing UI text. The trick with UI text is that in many languages it's not grammatically correct to begin with (GUI labels are rarely expressed in full sentences), and the terseness introduces vast amounts of ambiguity in meaning. Like take a "Submit" button - it can mean anything from "send this request in" to "grovel in front of me" depending on context. Human localizers struggle with this, especially when the source files they're provided with do not have sufficient context (and they cannot see the GUI in-context) to infer meaning. Existing translation engines are worse.
- koreth1 4y ago
  > Human localizers struggle with this, especially when the source files they're provided with do not have sufficient context (and they cannot see the GUI in-context) to infer meaning. And sometimes the lack of context is self-inflicted. My company just started evaluating translation services and as part of that process, we sent some of our strings to the candidate companies. Many of our strings are in Java properties files, which we've annotated with comments to give context. Yesterday I got a request back from one of them: please convert the strings to a JSON file. Which is on some level the equivalent of, please strip out all the comments you added for our benefit. Yes, I get that our strings will be fed into translation software. But still, we made the effort to give them context and they told us to get rid of it.
holoduke 4y ago
We are processing about 50 million words per day for about 12 languages. I can tell from experience that google translate is giving the best results. It similarly prices to deepl. We explored the idea of using chatgpt, but its extremely expensive compared to google/deepl 500.000 words for +-20 dollars versus a lot more with chatgpt.
- petodo 4y ago
  That's first time I hear someone would be praising Gtranslate, while they improved recently and they are catching up with DeepL, DeepL is still by far superior to GT, everything else is in completely different league (i don't have experience with ChstGPT). Btw. Reverso should be using same neural model as DeepL and provides also interesting results, though both DeepL and GT are superior to Reverso.
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  A translation tool like PoEdit can mass translate a bunch of text strings using a few different services. It's the simplest demonstration of the lower quality of Google Translate vs. DeepL at least for shorter strings. GTranslate rarely knows how a native speaker would say short phrases and concepts, preferring to translate them literally. I'm surprised you haven't run into problems with community verified translations. They're so predictably poor that I'd stop using GTranslate just to avoid that.

lowefk 4y ago

I found that GPT-3 is much better than DeepL when given high-quality examples as a prompt. GPT-3 knows more about the world, so it can translate proper nouns and slang used in specific communities better than DeepL.

shagie 4y ago

Consider: Translate the following json localization into French. Leave json keys untouched. ### { "button name": "Click here", "instructions":"press the \"${button name}\" button" } ### Which returned: { "button name": "Cliquez ici", "instructions":"appuyez sur le bouton \"${button name}\"" } Note that the button name remains unchanged. This is something that Google translate would do poorly.

hrpnk 4y ago
Native Google Translate may have problems here. However, when integrated into a Localization Management System (LMS) that is aware of common placeholder formats, Google Translate/DeepL are not expected to destroy the original translation text. Even if they do, consistency checks of the LMS is expected to verify that all placeholders from the source copy are present in its translation.

qt31415926 4y ago

For Vietnamese, ChatGPT has been much more effective for me. You can tell it very specific things to modify as well as give it additional context which you can't really do with Google Translate. Especially with pronouns, google will just translate everyone as 'uncle' or 'aunt' or 'grandma' or 'grandpa' and it'll get genders wrong all the time, which you can correct for with ChatGPT.

famouswaffles 4y ago

Bilingual Large Language Models are much better than the ilk of google translate. https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translations https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati...