2 ms·

AI will definitely not take over translation for a long time. Machine translation has improved to the point it's mostly no longer incoherent, but for non-formul

AI will definitely not take over translation for a long time. Machine translation has improved to the point it's mostly no longer incoherent, but for non-formulaic content it's still very hit-and-miss, not that much better compared to 10-20 years ago. For example, something they still struggle with is consistently translating terms coined within the text with consistent phrases. >A budding painter or a musician could support themselves off commissioned / commercial work while working on their grand opus... but now, the customers just prompt gen AI. Are you joking? The only people I see using generative AI are either companies, shitposters, and spammers. Who are all these people who have stopped paying commissions and moved over to prompting AIs?

adrianN 25d ago
But what share of translation dollars are non-formulaic content? To me it seems that there are tons of manuals for dishwasher and such to translate (where from my experience quality basically doesn't matter) and only a limited amount of diplomatic communiques.
- fluoridation 25d ago
  Manuals have been machine-translated for ages, well before algorithms were anywhere close to ready for the task. No change there. >a limited amount of diplomatic communiques With zero data to support it, I'd bet good money the vast majority of semi-professional translators (that is, those not employed by publishers but still making some money off of their work) work on fiction, translating comics, subtitles, etc. Actually, come to think of it, mixed media like those will be the last where machine translation will be able to fully take over humans, just because the text doesn't contain the entire relevant context for the job.
  - roskoe 25d ago
    > not employed by publishers Full time professional, 20 years of experience. Keep in mind that 99% of translators are freelance. Translating something takes only a fraction of the time it takes to write the original, so publishers only have full time project managers and editors and hire translators per job as needed. Engines like Deepl do give very good results on some single sentences. After all, they are huge databases of previous human translations, they are bound to nail it here and there. Where it falls apart is in keeping a good average and a consistent voice, so either you leave it all as messy AI sludge or you rewrite it substantially (at which point it's a glorified dictionary)
Arya_xiaofan 25d ago
There's another translation use case worth considering. For non-native English speakers, AI can help express ideas they already have in a language they're less comfortable with. Especially on forums like HN, the AI isn't generating the person's views - it's helping them say that what they already mean more clearly in English.
- fluoridation 25d ago
  Those people were never going to pay a human translator, though.
  - Arya_xiaofan 25d ago
    That's true.
nixon_why69 25d ago
> For example, something they still struggle with is consistently translating terms coined within the text with consistent phrases. Harness issue, just explicitly tell them to maintain a vocabulary as they go for proper nouns and novel terms.
matherial 25d ago
First, as others have said, a lot of translation work doesn't involve high-brow fiction. It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc. Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't.
- fluoridation 25d ago
  >It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc. Yes, I covered that under "formulaic content". As I've already said, a lot of this was already done decades ago. East Asian manuals and copies using machine translation are kind of a meme. Human translators are not losing any work from this. These are all businesses that were never going to employ a translator to begin with; it was either machine translation or nothing. >Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't. Well, you're not citing any examples, so you you don't give me much to work with. I haven't read a translated book in ages (I don't think), but I do move in circles where translations, human- and machine-made, are freely distributed, and people kick up a fuss over machine translations that they didn't even have to pay for. I can't imagine a paying reader being any kinder upon realizing that they're traded their hard-earned money for machine-produced nonsense. You yourself admit that the translator who does this is digging their own grave. How is this not a problem that corrects itself?
HDThoreaun 25d ago
Most paid translation work is just businesses that want to cover their ass so they don’t get blamed for a wildly shitty Google Translate. LLM translation is good enough for that. They’re not looking for art.
- fluoridation 25d ago
  So they go for a wildly shitty LLM translation?
  - HDThoreaun 25d ago
    Theyll certainly go for something they believe is reliably mildly shitty, yea. LLM translation has largely solved the biggest issue machine translation had which was proper nouns. Its good enough for most business cases now

adrianN 25d ago

But what share of translation dollars are non-formulaic content? To me it seems that there are tons of manuals for dishwasher and such to translate (where from my experience quality basically doesn't matter) and only a limited amount of diplomatic communiques.

fluoridation 25d ago
Manuals have been machine-translated for ages, well before algorithms were anywhere close to ready for the task. No change there. >a limited amount of diplomatic communiques With zero data to support it, I'd bet good money the vast majority of semi-professional translators (that is, those not employed by publishers but still making some money off of their work) work on fiction, translating comics, subtitles, etc. Actually, come to think of it, mixed media like those will be the last where machine translation will be able to fully take over humans, just because the text doesn't contain the entire relevant context for the job.
- roskoe 25d ago
  > not employed by publishers Full time professional, 20 years of experience. Keep in mind that 99% of translators are freelance. Translating something takes only a fraction of the time it takes to write the original, so publishers only have full time project managers and editors and hire translators per job as needed. Engines like Deepl do give very good results on some single sentences. After all, they are huge databases of previous human translations, they are bound to nail it here and there. Where it falls apart is in keeping a good average and a consistent voice, so either you leave it all as messy AI sludge or you rewrite it substantially (at which point it's a glorified dictionary)

Arya_xiaofan 25d ago

There's another translation use case worth considering. For non-native English speakers, AI can help express ideas they already have in a language they're less comfortable with. Especially on forums like HN, the AI isn't generating the person's views - it's helping them say that what they already mean more clearly in English.

fluoridation 25d ago
Those people were never going to pay a human translator, though.
- Arya_xiaofan 25d ago
  That's true.

nixon_why69 25d ago

> For example, something they still struggle with is consistently translating terms coined within the text with consistent phrases. Harness issue, just explicitly tell them to maintain a vocabulary as they go for proper nouns and novel terms.

matherial 25d ago

First, as others have said, a lot of translation work doesn't involve high-brow fiction. It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc. Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't.

fluoridation 25d ago
>It's reference material of all sorts. Technical books, manuals, software localizations, etc. Yes, I covered that under "formulaic content". As I've already said, a lot of this was already done decades ago. East Asian manuals and copies using machine translation are kind of a meme. Human translators are not losing any work from this. These are all businesses that were never going to employ a translator to begin with; it was either machine translation or nothing. >Second, you vastly overestimate the desire that book publishers have to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were (badly) machine-translated by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave. Yes, Harry Potter will get a good translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't. Well, you're not citing any examples, so you you don't give me much to work with. I haven't read a translated book in ages (I don't think), but I do move in circles where translations, human- and machine-made, are freely distributed, and people kick up a fuss over machine translations that they didn't even have to pay for. I can't imagine a paying reader being any kinder upon realizing that they're traded their hard-earned money for machine-produced nonsense. You yourself admit that the translator who does this is digging their own grave. How is this not a problem that corrects itself?

HDThoreaun 25d ago

Most paid translation work is just businesses that want to cover their ass so they don’t get blamed for a wildly shitty Google Translate. LLM translation is good enough for that. They’re not looking for art.

fluoridation 25d ago
So they go for a wildly shitty LLM translation?
- HDThoreaun 25d ago
  Theyll certainly go for something they believe is reliably mildly shitty, yea. LLM translation has largely solved the biggest issue machine translation had which was proper nouns. Its good enough for most business cases now