2 ms·

An important difference is the specific way that AI will fill in the blanks. A human translator can ask for clarification, in the best case understand the sourc

An important difference is the specific way that AI will fill in the blanks. A human translator can ask for clarification, in the best case understand the source material enough to figure out translation hitches, and in the worst case be held to blame. I think it would also be reasonable to credit the translator, whether or not that actually happens universally. An LLM doesn't "understand" anything, and just makes shit up. They make shit up so readily that they can't be trusted to ever not be doing that. Their use is also not being disclosed.

kolinko 2y ago
My experience is exactly the opposite. AI has way more domain-specific knowledge than any translator I could imagine. I recently published effort [1] - it was on front of HN recently - and literally everything on that page was rewritten by chatgpt. The flow is that I write it however I can, sometimes so badly that even a human professional would have difficulty to understand, then I ask chatgpt to go paragraph by paragraph and rewrite and smoothen out the text. You can see how the website was reworked here: https://chat.openai.com/share/e/10d7ba3f-f7eb-48cd-9250-d86401bee08a https://chat.openai.com/share/e/10d7ba3f-f7eb-48cd-9250-d864... GPT has way more domain knowledge in my area than most engineer friends I know, not to mention translators, and it managed to not just help with grammar, but with overall explanations I wrote. Of course it fails at higher level concepts, and a plenty of things, but still - I can get more quality output from him in an hour than by working a week with a dedicated translator/editor. [1] - http://kolinko.github.io/effort/ http://kolinko.github.io/effort/
bell-cot 2y ago
Sound like "use AI" is morally equivalent to "use a not-so-good secretary or translator". (I don't know the 1949 standards for crediting translators of research papers - but I'd bet that 99% of the blame for poor translation, by someone he'd specifically hired for the task, would fall on the Professor.) Rather than all the hype and panic about "AI-written Research Papers!", it seems far more reasonable to say "We'll treat you having an AI write your paper the same as you having your kid sister write your paper - responsibility and blame are 100% on you. Maybe with some extra helpings of humiliation and contempt, if it turns out that your kid sister wasn't qualified, and you failed to realize that and fix everything." But, back in the real world - hype and panic generate loads of lucrative clicks. So I'm not expecting intelligent policies any time soon.

kolinko 2y ago

My experience is exactly the opposite. AI has way more domain-specific knowledge than any translator I could imagine. I recently published effort [1] - it was on front of HN recently - and literally everything on that page was rewritten by chatgpt. The flow is that I write it however I can, sometimes so badly that even a human professional would have difficulty to understand, then I ask chatgpt to go paragraph by paragraph and rewrite and smoothen out the text. You can see how the website was reworked here: https://chat.openai.com/share/e/10d7ba3f-f7eb-48cd-9250-d86401bee08a https://chat.openai.com/share/e/10d7ba3f-f7eb-48cd-9250-d864... GPT has way more domain knowledge in my area than most engineer friends I know, not to mention translators, and it managed to not just help with grammar, but with overall explanations I wrote. Of course it fails at higher level concepts, and a plenty of things, but still - I can get more quality output from him in an hour than by working a week with a dedicated translator/editor. [1] - http://kolinko.github.io/effort/ http://kolinko.github.io/effort/

bell-cot 2y ago

Sound like "use AI" is morally equivalent to "use a not-so-good secretary or translator". (I don't know the 1949 standards for crediting translators of research papers - but I'd bet that 99% of the blame for poor translation, by someone he'd specifically hired for the task, would fall on the Professor.) Rather than all the hype and panic about "AI-written Research Papers!", it seems far more reasonable to say "We'll treat you having an AI write your paper the same as you having your kid sister write your paper - responsibility and blame are 100% on you. Maybe with some extra helpings of humiliation and contempt, if it turns out that your kid sister wasn't qualified, and you failed to realize that and fix everything." But, back in the real world - hype and panic generate loads of lucrative clicks. So I'm not expecting intelligent policies any time soon.