3 ms·
While it's true that more accurate translation is more computationally expensive, and we do have good knowledge of the structures and algorithms for machine tra
by ithkuil 13y ago
While it's true that more accurate translation is more computationally expensive, and we do have good knowledge of the structures and algorithms for machine translation, it's far from being a solved problem, mostly because it requires a relevant multilingual corpus for training (see [1])
That's also why translation performance varies greatly depending on which kind of prose you are translating (yes, there are attempts to translate poetry as well, see [2]).
There is a huge amount of potential information on the web but it's rarely well curated and the next big problem is how to extract it.
[1] See http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/how-google-translate-works-2353594.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/fea...
[2] http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/poetic-machine-translation.html http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/poetic-machine-tr...
- crishoj 13y agoThe lack of high-quality bilingual corpora is hardly the primary obstacle to considering automatic translation a solved problem. Even for language pairs for which plenty of "bitext" exists, the current approaches to machine translation still face major challenges with regards to ambiguities, idioms, finely nuances imagery and other semantic subtleties, all of which pose hard, but not insurmountable challenges to an expert human translator.