A few days ago, I came across an article titled Language Is No Longer Human in a well-known international magazine in the translation industry. The title piqued my curiosity, so I took the time to read through.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but since I have no pictures to share, the best I can do is list a few quotations in the attempt to give you a taste of what the article was aiming for.
Here are a few selected gems:
“GenAI has fooled us just like scientists have fooled apes, dogs, dolphins, whales, and even bees with artificial noises, smells, and sunlight to study how they communicate.”
“Nobody expected translators to “reason.” They were expected to translate and to occasionally “adapt” the message to a local audience.”
“Translation is one clear domain in which AI is excelling beyond human capabilities.”
“One area where AI outperforms humans when it comes to language is in marketing.”
“Humans don’t master languages well”; this is the where the writer describes the life of Henry Kissinger, who by the time he immigrated to the US was no longer a child, so his command of German (first language) and English (second language) did not suffice to make either of them his native tongue. According to this article, Kissinger’s accent made him a subject of mockery: “What paradoxes surround Kissinger! He didn’t master either of his two languages perfectly, but he dominated international politics. Like an operatic or comedic character, his entire life as a diplomat was a starring role in a foreign drama.” And so, Kissinger’s story shows humans don’t master languages well.
“Traditionally, language service providers (LSPs) that translated marketing content had to rely on “in-country” specialists and face availability issues, with all the typical problems of a human-based process that cannot scale.”
“Despite the potential job losses, AI will certainly bring some positive changes to society, as well. For example, are we ready for a neutral judicial system in which AI judges — uninfluenced by politicians or the media — make decisions (and explain them) based on facts and jurisprudence?”
What I really missed in this article is evidence; there is not a single reference supporting the claims that translation is a relatively superficial process, that human-based processes are typically problematic, or that AI outperforms translators in any domain. I will disregard the idea that humans fail to master languages or that the judicial system can be easily replaced by AI [which will make it better].
My approach is that AI can complement the work of human translators, so in this spirit, allow me to “complement” this article with some reliable references.
The use of GenAI in the translation profession is rather modest. This may be due to the low quality of the output generated, but also due to a knowledge gap observed in professional translators and students of translation alike [please see here].
Our systematic review of nine reports provided a comprehensive overview of the use of AI to serve as a medical language interpreter and concluded that AI holds considerable potential for future applications in clinical settings. While AI translation can sufficiently meet the needs for simple, straightforward clinical communications, they are currently inadequate for extensive discussions and remains inferior to human interpretation [please see here].
It is apparent that certain facets of translation will always elude the capabilities of artificial intelligence. These encompass the capacity to comprehend and communicate cultural subtleties, linguistic wit, and the significance of interpersonal engagement that are present in various fields of translation [please see here].
Or in the words of ChatGPT itself: AI processes language without truly “experiencing” the world or interacting with humans on a personal level, which makes it harder for it to fully grasp the depth of meaning behind words.
"When the owner of a translation agency writes such an article to proclaim that human linguists are dispensable, they are expected at the very least to share some data showing how the number of linguists they employ has dropped over the last couple of years."
There is no doubt that translators need to hone their existing skills and explore new capabilities in light of concurrent and future technological developments. While I believe AI is nowhere close to replacing humans in this domain, it can prove to be a real asset in this industry.
This article offers an opportunity to discuss the image presented by some technology companies and translation agencies and compare it to the situation on the ground. Whether an engine capable of performing highly advanced statistical calculations can truly understand language and replace human translators is a question that truly deserves our attention. I believe we need to find a way to harness this technology to our advantage on one hand and refine the standards to which we hold human translators on the other.
When the owner of a translation agency writes such an article to proclaim that human linguists are dispensable, they are expected at the very least to share some data showing how the number of linguists they employ has dropped over the last couple of years and how they communicate to their clients that their marketing materials are translated without the hassle of human-based processes. Otherwise, they are misleading their clients and spreading disinformation. I am personally very curious to learn if technology has truly reached that point.
Comments