> ... a translators’ and interpreters’ work is mostly about ensuring context, navigating ambiguity, and handling cultural sensitivity. This is what Google Translate cannot currently do.
Google Translate can't, but LLMs given enough context can. I've been testing and experimenting with LLMs extensively for translation between Japanese and English for more than two years, and, when properly prompted, they are really good. I say this as someone who worked for twenty years as a freelance translator of Japanese and who still does translation part-time.
Just yesterday, as it happens, I spent the day with Claude Code vibe-coding a multi-LLM system for translating between Japanese and English. You give it a text to be translated, and it asks you questions that it generates on the fly about the purpose of the translation and how you want it translated--literal or free, adapted to the target-language culture or not, with or without footnotes, etc. It then writes a prompt based on your answers, sends the text to models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, creates a combined draft from the three translations, and then sends that draft back to the three models for several rounds of revision, checking, and polishing. I had time to run only a few tests on real texts before going to bed, but the results were really good--better than any model alone when I've tested them, much better than Google Translate, and as good as top-level professional human translation.
The situation is different with interpreting, especially in person. If that were how I made my living, I wouldn't be too worried yet. But for straight translation work where the translator's personality and individual identity aren't emphasized, it's becoming increasingly hard for humans to compete.
felipeerias · 2h ago
It is hard to convey just how important it is to be able to provide additional context, ask follow-up questions, and reason about the text.
I live in Japan. Almost every day I find myself asking things like “what does X mean in this specific setting?” or “how do I tell Y to that specific person via this specific medium?”.
Much of this can be further automated via custom instructions, so that e.g. the LMM knows that text in a particular language should be automatically translated and explained.
tkgally · 2h ago
> It is hard to convey just how important it is to be able to ... ask follow-up questions, and reason about the text.
Great ideas. I'll think about adding those features to the system in my next vibe-coding session.
What I automated in the MVP I vibe-coded yesterday could all be done alone by a human user with access to the LLMs, of course. The point of such an app would be to guide people who are not familiar with the issues and intricacies of translation so that they can get better translations for their purposes.
I have no intention to try to commercialize my app, as there would be no moat. Anyone who wanted to could feed this thread to Claude, ask it to write a starting prompt for Claude Code, and produce a similar system in probably less time than it took me.
lukax · 5h ago
Try Soniox for real-time translation (interpreting). With the limited context it has in real-time, it's actually really good.
The distinction between what people typically imagine a translator's job is and the reality reminds me of pixar movies being "localized" instead of just translated (green beans on a plate in the Japan release instead of broccoli because that's the food that Japanese kids don't like).
Lacking cultural context while reading translated texts is what made studying history finally interesting to me.
This article is spot on about a lot of things. One thing I think it fails to address is this:
> I feel confident in asserting that people who say this would not have hired a translator or learned Japanese in a world without Google Translate; they’d have either not gone to Japan at all, or gone anyway and been clueless foreigners as tourists are wont to do.
The correlation here would be something like: the people using AI to build apps previously would simply never have created an app, so it’s not affecting software development as a career as much as you first expect.
It would be like saying AI art won’t affect artists, because the people who would put in such little effort probably would never have commissioned anyone. Which may be a little true (at least in that it reduces the impact).
However, I don’t necessarily know if that’s true for software development. The ability to build software enabled huge business opportunities at very low costs. I think the key difference is this: the people who are now putting in such low effort into commissioning software maybe did hire software engineers before this, and that might throw off a lot of the numbers.
tptacek · 4h ago
The reasonable concern people have about AI eliminating coder jobs is that they will make existing coders drastically more productive. "Productivity" is literally defined as the number X of people required to do Y amount of stuff.
I'm not sure how seriously people take the threat of non-coding vibe-coders. Maybe they should! The most important and popular programming environment in the world is the spreadsheet. Before spreadsheets, everything that is today a spreadsheet was a program some programmer had to write.
simonw · 3h ago
I'm still optimistic that the net effect of making existing programmers drastically more productive is that our value goes up, because we can produce more value for other people.
EZ-E · 36m ago
I rather think that LLMs help to write code faster, and also enables folks that would not program to do so in some capacity. In the end, you end up with more code in the world, and you end up needing more programmers to maintain/keep it running at scale.
dfxm12 · 3h ago
The economy has taught us that when there is an excess of worker productivity, it leads to layoffs. It certainly does not lead to raises.
ryandrake · 2h ago
No software company I have ever worked at had an excess of worker productivity. There were always at least 3-5X as much work needing to be done, bugs needing to be fixed, features that needed to be implemented than engineers to do it. Backlogs just grew and grew until you just gave up and mass-closed issues because they were 10 years old.
If AI coding improves productivity, it might move us closer to having 2X as much work as we can possibly do instead of 3X.
lmm · 2h ago
That sounds like the famous lump of labour fallacy. When something's cheaper people often spend more on it (Jevons paradox).
bgwalter · 1h ago
This "fallacy" is from 1891 and assumes jobs that require virtually no retraining. A farm worker could ion theory clean the factory floor or do one small step in an assembly line within a week.
Nowadays we already have bullshit jobs that keep academics employed. Retraining takes several years.
With "AI" the danger is theoretically limited because it creates more bureaucracy and reduces productivity. The problem is that it is used as an excuse for layoffs.
kasey_junk · 2h ago
Do you have a citation for that?
ohthatsnotright · 2h ago
What a strange thing to ask for a citation on when CEO pay, stock buy backs and corporate dividends are at all time highs while worker pay and honestly just affording to live continue to crater.
kasey_junk · 1h ago
Productivity is up and labor wages are up. That’s why I asked. It wasn’t an attempt at a rebuttal it was a request for reading material as it’s a heterodox view.
The normal conversation is that productivity growth has slowed and the divide has increased, not that more productivity creates lower outcomes in real terms.
I mean, I hate a lazy "citation needed" FUD attack as much as (really likely way more than) anyone, but with a bit more context I do think a citation is needed, as the correct citation in the other direction is (as someone else noted) Jevon's paradox: when you make it easier to X, you make it so people can use X in ever more contexts, and you make it so that the things which previously needed something way harder than X are suddenly possible, and the result -- as much in software development as any other field: it seems like every year it becomes MUCH easier to do things, due to better tools -- always seems to result in MORE demand, not less... we even see the slow raising of "table stakes" for software, such that a website or app is off-putting and lame to a lot of users if it isn't doing the things that require at least some effort: instead of animated transitions and giant images maybe the next phase of this is that the website has to be an interactive assistant white-glove AI experience--or some crazy AR-capable thing--requiring tons of engineering effort to pull off, but now possible for your average website due to AI coding. Meanwhile, the other effects you are talking about all started before AI coding even sort of worked well, and so have very little to do with AI: they are more related to monetary policy shifts, temporary pandemic demand spikes, and that R&D tax law change.
alganet · 3h ago
> everything that is today a spreadsheet was a program some programmer had to write
That is incorrect, sir.
First, because many problems were designed to fit into spreadsheets (human systems designed around a convenient tool). It is much more likely that several spreadsheets were _paper_ before, not custom written programs. For a lot of cases, that paper work was adapted directly to spreadsheets, no one did a custom program intermediate.
Second, because many problems we have today could be solved by simple spreadsheets, but they often aren't. Instead, people choose to hire developers instead, for a variety of reasons.
tptacek · 3h ago
I'm not sure we're really disagreeing about anything here. If you think spreadsheets didn't displace any programmers at all, that's contrary to my intuition, but not necessarily wrong --- especially because of the explosion of extrinsic demand for computer programming.
MarkusQ · 5h ago
Conversely, it may create jobs. Why? Because the more elephants you have in your parade, the more jobs there are for folks to walk behind them with a broom and bucket. For decades we've seen tools that "let users write their own software" and every one of them has driven up the demand for people to clean it up, make it scale, make it secure, or otherwise clean up the mess.
sodality2 · 4h ago
Also true! But that world is one where the vast majority of time is spent cleaning up slop code, so if there's a general shift towards that, I think that still changes the job in a significant way. (I don't have extensive history in the industry yet so I may be wrong here)
MarkusQ · 2h ago
<tired old fart voice>
It's all cleaning up slop code. Always has been.
</tired old fart voice>
More optimistically, you can think of "user created code" as an attempt at a design document of sorts; they were trying to tell you (and the computer) what they wanted in "your language". And that dialog is the important thing.
ryandrake · 2h ago
Seriously. Unless you're one of the vanishingly rare few working with true Greenfield projects that start with an empty text file, you're basically cleaning up other developer's legacy slop.
steveBK123 · 5h ago
Google translate is a good example too in terms of better-than-nothing to the completely uninitiated, helpful to someone with a little knowledge, and obviously not a replacement for a professional. That is - the more you know, the more you see its failures.
I know enough Japanese to talk like a small child, make halting small talk in a taxi, and understand a dining menu / restaurant signage broadly. I also have been enough times to understand context where literal translation to English fails to convey the actual message.. for example in cases where they want to say no to a customer but can't literally say no.
I have found Google Translate to be similarly magical and dumb for 15 years of traveling to Japan without any huge improvements other than speed. The visual real-time image OCR stuff was an app they purchased (Magic Lens?) that I had previously used.
So who knows, maybe LLM coding stays in a similar pretty-good-never-perfect state for a decade.
jf · 3h ago
> The visual real-time image OCR stuff was an app they purchased (Magic Lens?) that I had previously used.
> So who knows, maybe LLM coding stays in a similar pretty-good-never-perfect state for a decade.
I think this is definitely a possibility, but I think the technology is still WAY too early to know that if the "second AI winter" the author references never comes, that we still wouldn't discover tons of other use cases that would change a lot.
I think you're right, AI art and AI software dev are not analogous. The point of art is to create art. There are a lot of traditions and cultural expectations around this, and many of them depend on the artist involved. The human in the loop is important.
Meanwhile, the point of software development is not to write code. It's to get a working application that accomplishes a task. If this can be done, even at low quality, without hiring as many people, there is no more value to the human. In HN terms, there is no moat.
It's the difference between the transition from painting to photography and the transition from elevator operators to pushbuttons.
bgwalter · 3h ago
I'm currently getting two types of ads on YouTube: One is about how the official Israeli Gaza humanitarian efforts are totally fine and adequate (launched during the flotilla with Greta Thunberg).
The other is about an "AI" website generator, spamming every video at the start.
I wonder what kind of honest efforts would require that kind of marketing.
candiddevmike · 5h ago
I think you could extrapolate it and say folks are primarily using GenAI for things they aren't considered a specialist in.
jezzamon · 1h ago
I was thinking about this comparison recently along a slightly different axis: One challenge when working with translations (human or machine translations) as that you can't vet whether it's correct or not yourself. So you just have to either trust the translation and hope it's the best. It's a lot easier to trust a person than a machine, though I have had someone message me once to say "this translation of your article is so bad I feel like the translator did not put in a serious attempt"
It's similar to vibe coding where the user truly doesn't know how to create the same thing themselves: You end up with output that you have no way of knowing it's correct, and you just have to blindly trust it and hope for the best. And that just doesn't work for many situations. So you still need expertise anyway (either yours or someone else's)
eurleif · 50m ago
You can kinda validate machine translation by doing a circular translation, A->B->A. It's not a perfect test, but it's a reasonably strong signal.
stevage · 1h ago
Well no, you can run the output. That gives you some measure of correctness.
danpalmer · 1h ago
No I think the original comment is correct. You need to be able to evaluate the result.
The goal of software is not to compile and run, it's to solve a problem for the user when running. If you don't know enough about the problem to be able to assess the output of the program then you can't trust that it's actually doing the right thing.
I've seen code generated by LLMs that runs, does something, and that the something would be plausible to a layperson, but that I know from domain knowledge and knowing the gotchas involved in programming that it's not actually correct.
I think the comparison with translation is a very apt one.
devnullbrain · 5h ago
>All this is not to say Google Translate is doing a bad job
Google Translate is doing a bad job.
The Chrome translate function regularly detects Traditional Chinese as Japanese. While many characters are shared, detecting the latter is trivial by comparing unicode code points - Chinese has no kana. The function used to detect this correctly, but it has regressed.
Most irritatingly of all, it doesn't even let you correct its mistakes: as is the rule for all kinds of modern software, the machine thinks it knows best.
simonw · 4h ago
That doesn't sound like a problem with Google Translate, it sounds like a problem with Google Chrome. I believe Chrome uses this small on-device model to detect the language before offering to translate it: https://github.com/google/cld3#readme
krackers · 5h ago
This seems like a terrible comparison since Google Translate is completely beat by DeepL, let alone LLMs. (Google Translate almost surely doesn't use an LLM, or at least not a _large_ one given its speed)
Ninjinka · 5h ago
For Google's Cloud Translation API you can choose between the standard Neural Machine Translation (NMT) model or the "Translation LLM (Google's newest highest quality LLM-style translation model)".
> At the dinner table a Norwegian is likely to say something like “Jeg vil ha potetene” (literally “I will have the potatoes”, which sounds presumptuous and haughty in English) where a brit might say “Could I please have some potatoes?”.
I find “I will have the potatoes” to be perfectly fine English and not haughty in the slightest. Is this a difference between British English and American English?
jvanderbot · 2h ago
When ordering, "I will have" sounds reasonable.
When asking someone to pass them to you, just imagine them turning to you, looking you in the eye, and asserting "I will have the potatoes" like it's some kind of ultimatum. Yes, that is strange.
roxolotl · 45m ago
It’s such an anachronistic statement I laughed out loud reading your comment. I even was taught that you can’t pass things mid air. You place the potatoes down between each person required to pass them to the person who wants them.
noobermin · 2h ago
Americans are extremely polite, and American English is replete with niceties in everyday speech. It's funny, having been a tourist abroad, it's only living in a significantly non American country for a few years that lead me to realise this. I even lived in another country albeit a former US colony for ten years and didn't even notice it there given American influence.
I stopped saying, stuff "I would like a latte today" or more Midwestern (could I get a latte today etc) in singapore because people would just get confused. Same with being too polite when recieving things. There's ways to be polite but it usually involves less words because anything else confuses people.
danpalmer · 1h ago
> Americans are extremely polite
Having grown up in the UK and living in Australia, I do not find Americans polite. To me, politeness is "please", "thank you", "may I have", etc, whereas "I would like a latte today" reads to me as a demand. In context it's fine (it stands out a bit but not in a problematic way), it's not particularly rude, but in general just stating your desires is not considered polite in my experience in UK/AU.
There are some other parts of American English that may be considered polite, I notice a lot of US folks addressing me as "sir" for example, but this sort of thing comes off as insincere or even sarcastic/rude.
I know this is how people communicate so they don't really bother me, I'm used to them and accept that different people have different expectations. I also understand that Americans might believe they are being polite and consider me to be rude, but I think this is why blanket statements like "Americans are extremely polite" are just missing so much cultural nuance.
rr808 · 1h ago
Maybe its a NY thing I was shocked when I heard people in restaurants saying "I want...". Growing up outside the US "want" is a very impolite word. People in US are polite but direct, usually English/Irish people are much less direct.
ryao · 1h ago
Coincidentally, I am in NY. That said, “I want…” when ordering seems fine to me too.
sudahtigabulan · 2h ago
> could I get a latte today actually
To me (non-American) the above sounds like sarcasm, not politeness. Adding "today" and/or "actually" could mean you've had it with their delays.
I like to joke that Americans always seem to find ways to get offended by innocuous things, but in this case the joke is on me.
neilv · 3h ago
Some additional things that translators do (which I recall from a professional translator friend, put in my own words):
* Idioms (The article mentions in passing that this isn't so much a difficulty in Norwegian->English, but of course idioms usually don't translate as sentences)
* Cultural references (From arts, history, cuisine, etc. You don't necessarily substitute, but you might have to hint if it has relevant connotations that would be missed.)
* Cultural values (What does "freedom" mean to this one nation, or "passion" to this other, or "resilience" to another, and does that influence translation)
* Matching actor in dubbing (Sometimes the translation you'd use for a line of a dialogue in a book doesn't fit the duration and speaking movements of an actor in a movie, so the translator changes the language to fit better.)
* Artful prose. (AFAICT, LLMs really can't touch this, unless they're directly plagiarizing the right artful bit)
NicuCalcea · 4h ago
While it's just anecdotal evidence, I have translator friends and work has indeed been drying up over the past decade, and that has only accelerated with the introduction of LLMs. Just check any forum or facebook group for translators, it's all doom and gloom about AI. See this reddit thread, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/TranslationStudies/comments/173okwg...
While professionals still produce much better quality translations, the demand for everything but the most sensitive work is nearly gone. Would you recommend your offspring get into the industry?
tossaway0 · 1h ago
I imagine even for professional teams with clients that need proper translations, LLMs have made it so one person can do the work of many. The difference between the quality of former automatic translations and LLM translations is huge; you couldn't rely on auto translation at all.
Now a professional service only needs a reviewer to edit what the LLM produces. You can even ask the LLM to translate in certain tones, dialects, etc. and they do it very well.
darvinyraghpath · 6h ago
Fascinating thought piece. While I agree with the thrust of the piece: 'that llms can't really replace engineers', unfortunately the way the industry works is that the excuse of AI, however grounded in reality has been repurposed as a cudgel against actual software industry workers. Sure eventually everyone might figure out that AI can't really write code by itself - and software quality will degrade..
But unfortunately we've long been on the path of enshitification and I fear the trend will only continue.
If google's war against its own engineers has resulted in shittier software - and things start break twice a year instead of once - would anyone really blink twice?
tartoran · 5h ago
Maybe AI can't replace engineers but it surely can apply downward pressure on engineers' salaries.
dr_dshiv · 6h ago
In my limited experience, LLMs can have issues with translation tone — but these issues are pretty easily fixed with good prompting.
I want to believe there will be even more translators in the future. I really want to believe it.
alganet · 4h ago
> easily fixed with good prompting
Can you give us an example of a typical translation question and the "good prompting" required to make the LLM consider tone?
Good, but not exactly what I expected for "easily fixed".
It includes a lot of steps and constant human evaluation between them, which implies that decisions about tone are ultimately made by whoever is prompting the LLM, not the LLMs themselves.
> "If they are generally in the style I want..."
> "choosing the sentences and paragraphs I like most from each..."
> "I also make my own adjustments to the translation as I see fit..."
> "I don’t adopt most of the LLM’s suggestions..."
> "I check it paragraph by paragraph..."
It seems like a great workflow to speed up the work of an already experienced translator, but far from being usable by a layman due to the several steps requiring specialized human supervision.
Consider the scenario presented by the blog post regarding bluntness/politeness and cultural sensitivities. Would anyone be able to use this workflow without knowing that beforehand? If you think about it, it could make the tone even worse.
noname120 · 3h ago
The article starts with a giant straw man and miscaracterisation, not sure that I want to read the rest of the article at this point
No comments yet
carlosjobim · 5h ago
As long as the person you are talking or writing to is aware that you're not a native speaker, they will understand that you won't be able to follow conventions around polite languages or understand subtle nuances on their part. It's really a non issue. The finer clues of language are intended for people who are from the same culture.
yieldcrv · 3h ago
This is like the worst comparison since generative AI is far better at conversational translation than google translate
LLM’s will tell you idioms, slang, and the point behind it
You can take a screenshot of telegram channels for both sides of a war conflict and get all context in a minute
In classic HN fashion I’m sure I missed the point, ok translators are still in demand got it.
Google Translate has been leapfrogged by the same thing that allows for “vibecoding”
Google Translate can't, but LLMs given enough context can. I've been testing and experimenting with LLMs extensively for translation between Japanese and English for more than two years, and, when properly prompted, they are really good. I say this as someone who worked for twenty years as a freelance translator of Japanese and who still does translation part-time.
Just yesterday, as it happens, I spent the day with Claude Code vibe-coding a multi-LLM system for translating between Japanese and English. You give it a text to be translated, and it asks you questions that it generates on the fly about the purpose of the translation and how you want it translated--literal or free, adapted to the target-language culture or not, with or without footnotes, etc. It then writes a prompt based on your answers, sends the text to models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, creates a combined draft from the three translations, and then sends that draft back to the three models for several rounds of revision, checking, and polishing. I had time to run only a few tests on real texts before going to bed, but the results were really good--better than any model alone when I've tested them, much better than Google Translate, and as good as top-level professional human translation.
The situation is different with interpreting, especially in person. If that were how I made my living, I wouldn't be too worried yet. But for straight translation work where the translator's personality and individual identity aren't emphasized, it's becoming increasingly hard for humans to compete.
I live in Japan. Almost every day I find myself asking things like “what does X mean in this specific setting?” or “how do I tell Y to that specific person via this specific medium?”.
Much of this can be further automated via custom instructions, so that e.g. the LMM knows that text in a particular language should be automatically translated and explained.
Great ideas. I'll think about adding those features to the system in my next vibe-coding session.
What I automated in the MVP I vibe-coded yesterday could all be done alone by a human user with access to the LLMs, of course. The point of such an app would be to guide people who are not familiar with the issues and intricacies of translation so that they can get better translations for their purposes.
I have no intention to try to commercialize my app, as there would be no moat. Anyone who wanted to could feed this thread to Claude, ask it to write a starting prompt for Claude Code, and produce a similar system in probably less time than it took me.
https://soniox.com
Disclaimer: I work for Soniox.
Lacking cultural context while reading translated texts is what made studying history finally interesting to me.
> I feel confident in asserting that people who say this would not have hired a translator or learned Japanese in a world without Google Translate; they’d have either not gone to Japan at all, or gone anyway and been clueless foreigners as tourists are wont to do.
The correlation here would be something like: the people using AI to build apps previously would simply never have created an app, so it’s not affecting software development as a career as much as you first expect.
It would be like saying AI art won’t affect artists, because the people who would put in such little effort probably would never have commissioned anyone. Which may be a little true (at least in that it reduces the impact).
However, I don’t necessarily know if that’s true for software development. The ability to build software enabled huge business opportunities at very low costs. I think the key difference is this: the people who are now putting in such low effort into commissioning software maybe did hire software engineers before this, and that might throw off a lot of the numbers.
I'm not sure how seriously people take the threat of non-coding vibe-coders. Maybe they should! The most important and popular programming environment in the world is the spreadsheet. Before spreadsheets, everything that is today a spreadsheet was a program some programmer had to write.
If AI coding improves productivity, it might move us closer to having 2X as much work as we can possibly do instead of 3X.
Nowadays we already have bullshit jobs that keep academics employed. Retraining takes several years.
With "AI" the danger is theoretically limited because it creates more bureaucracy and reduces productivity. The problem is that it is used as an excuse for layoffs.
The normal conversation is that productivity growth has slowed and the divide has increased, not that more productivity creates lower outcomes in real terms.
https://www.bls.gov/productivity/images/labor-compensation-l...
That is incorrect, sir.
First, because many problems were designed to fit into spreadsheets (human systems designed around a convenient tool). It is much more likely that several spreadsheets were _paper_ before, not custom written programs. For a lot of cases, that paper work was adapted directly to spreadsheets, no one did a custom program intermediate.
Second, because many problems we have today could be solved by simple spreadsheets, but they often aren't. Instead, people choose to hire developers instead, for a variety of reasons.
It's all cleaning up slop code. Always has been.
</tired old fart voice>
More optimistically, you can think of "user created code" as an attempt at a design document of sorts; they were trying to tell you (and the computer) what they wanted in "your language". And that dialog is the important thing.
I know enough Japanese to talk like a small child, make halting small talk in a taxi, and understand a dining menu / restaurant signage broadly. I also have been enough times to understand context where literal translation to English fails to convey the actual message.. for example in cases where they want to say no to a customer but can't literally say no.
I have found Google Translate to be similarly magical and dumb for 15 years of traveling to Japan without any huge improvements other than speed. The visual real-time image OCR stuff was an app they purchased (Magic Lens?) that I had previously used.
So who knows, maybe LLM coding stays in a similar pretty-good-never-perfect state for a decade.
Word Lens, by Quest Visual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_Visual
I think this is definitely a possibility, but I think the technology is still WAY too early to know that if the "second AI winter" the author references never comes, that we still wouldn't discover tons of other use cases that would change a lot.
Meanwhile, the point of software development is not to write code. It's to get a working application that accomplishes a task. If this can be done, even at low quality, without hiring as many people, there is no more value to the human. In HN terms, there is no moat.
It's the difference between the transition from painting to photography and the transition from elevator operators to pushbuttons.
The other is about an "AI" website generator, spamming every video at the start.
I wonder what kind of honest efforts would require that kind of marketing.
It's similar to vibe coding where the user truly doesn't know how to create the same thing themselves: You end up with output that you have no way of knowing it's correct, and you just have to blindly trust it and hope for the best. And that just doesn't work for many situations. So you still need expertise anyway (either yours or someone else's)
The goal of software is not to compile and run, it's to solve a problem for the user when running. If you don't know enough about the problem to be able to assess the output of the program then you can't trust that it's actually doing the right thing.
I've seen code generated by LLMs that runs, does something, and that the something would be plausible to a layperson, but that I know from domain knowledge and knowing the gotchas involved in programming that it's not actually correct.
I think the comparison with translation is a very apt one.
Google Translate is doing a bad job.
The Chrome translate function regularly detects Traditional Chinese as Japanese. While many characters are shared, detecting the latter is trivial by comparing unicode code points - Chinese has no kana. The function used to detect this correctly, but it has regressed.
Most irritatingly of all, it doesn't even let you correct its mistakes: as is the rule for all kinds of modern software, the machine thinks it knows best.
https://cloud.google.com/translate/docs/advanced/translating...
DeepL also has a translation LLM, which they claim is 1.4-1.7x better than their classic model: https://www.deepl.com/en/blog/next-gen-language-model
I find “I will have the potatoes” to be perfectly fine English and not haughty in the slightest. Is this a difference between British English and American English?
When asking someone to pass them to you, just imagine them turning to you, looking you in the eye, and asserting "I will have the potatoes" like it's some kind of ultimatum. Yes, that is strange.
I stopped saying, stuff "I would like a latte today" or more Midwestern (could I get a latte today etc) in singapore because people would just get confused. Same with being too polite when recieving things. There's ways to be polite but it usually involves less words because anything else confuses people.
Having grown up in the UK and living in Australia, I do not find Americans polite. To me, politeness is "please", "thank you", "may I have", etc, whereas "I would like a latte today" reads to me as a demand. In context it's fine (it stands out a bit but not in a problematic way), it's not particularly rude, but in general just stating your desires is not considered polite in my experience in UK/AU.
There are some other parts of American English that may be considered polite, I notice a lot of US folks addressing me as "sir" for example, but this sort of thing comes off as insincere or even sarcastic/rude.
I know this is how people communicate so they don't really bother me, I'm used to them and accept that different people have different expectations. I also understand that Americans might believe they are being polite and consider me to be rude, but I think this is why blanket statements like "Americans are extremely polite" are just missing so much cultural nuance.
To me (non-American) the above sounds like sarcasm, not politeness. Adding "today" and/or "actually" could mean you've had it with their delays.
I like to joke that Americans always seem to find ways to get offended by innocuous things, but in this case the joke is on me.
* Idioms (The article mentions in passing that this isn't so much a difficulty in Norwegian->English, but of course idioms usually don't translate as sentences)
* Cultural references (From arts, history, cuisine, etc. You don't necessarily substitute, but you might have to hint if it has relevant connotations that would be missed.)
* Cultural values (What does "freedom" mean to this one nation, or "passion" to this other, or "resilience" to another, and does that influence translation)
* Matching actor in dubbing (Sometimes the translation you'd use for a line of a dialogue in a book doesn't fit the duration and speaking movements of an actor in a movie, so the translator changes the language to fit better.)
* Artful prose. (AFAICT, LLMs really can't touch this, unless they're directly plagiarizing the right artful bit)
While professionals still produce much better quality translations, the demand for everything but the most sensitive work is nearly gone. Would you recommend your offspring get into the industry?
Now a professional service only needs a reviewer to edit what the LLM produces. You can even ask the LLM to translate in certain tones, dialects, etc. and they do it very well.
I want to believe there will be even more translators in the future. I really want to believe it.
Can you give us an example of a typical translation question and the "good prompting" required to make the LLM consider tone?
It includes a lot of steps and constant human evaluation between them, which implies that decisions about tone are ultimately made by whoever is prompting the LLM, not the LLMs themselves.
> "If they are generally in the style I want..."
> "choosing the sentences and paragraphs I like most from each..."
> "I also make my own adjustments to the translation as I see fit..."
> "I don’t adopt most of the LLM’s suggestions..."
> "I check it paragraph by paragraph..."
It seems like a great workflow to speed up the work of an already experienced translator, but far from being usable by a layman due to the several steps requiring specialized human supervision.
Consider the scenario presented by the blog post regarding bluntness/politeness and cultural sensitivities. Would anyone be able to use this workflow without knowing that beforehand? If you think about it, it could make the tone even worse.
No comments yet
LLM’s will tell you idioms, slang, and the point behind it
You can take a screenshot of telegram channels for both sides of a war conflict and get all context in a minute
In classic HN fashion I’m sure I missed the point, ok translators are still in demand got it.
Google Translate has been leapfrogged by the same thing that allows for “vibecoding”