I'd like to add something, as a former tech futurist and also director of a DOD lab for language. I'm well acquainted with translators mistrust of machine translation. I'm also used to serving an agency that requires expert-level translation (think diplomacy, for instance), generally believed to be the domain of humans only (still).
First, machine translation has come a long, long way. Thanks to MT, we have the ability to work in many low-density and uncommon languages where there often aren't enough humans to teach the language. But it is a good tool for many lower-level usages. For the linguists I used to work with, it was a way to do triage, to do a quick and dirty first pass for the human to work from and get all the nuance. It's called "assisted work", using tools to help us work better or faster.
I'm not advocating complete machine translation for works of literature. I'm just trying to make folks aware of the big picture. I watched linguists dig in their heels and refuse to use tools our engineers tried to roll out to make their jobs easier. People are protective and wary when it comes to their jobs, I understand. But there are benefits to machine translation, too.
Such a great comment, and also a great reminder that book publishing has too often been way too late to the party when it comes to "assisted work," as in producing e-books. There ARE benefits to machine translation for some kinds of publications, really, many kinds of publications. What concerns me with this VBK initiative is that it doesn't sound as if it's fully thought through OR as if they want to discuss its pros and cons.
I'm open to AI but so far it has failed me in everything I've tried including book descriptions and synopsi. I heard it was good for initial book translation followed by a human proofread / edit, but after reading your post I also doubt it would be effective. Even total translations by humans leaves me wanting to read the book in the original language although I've heard that a great translator can make the book even better. Thanks for discussing this!
I'd like to add something, as a former tech futurist and also director of a DOD lab for language. I'm well acquainted with translators mistrust of machine translation. I'm also used to serving an agency that requires expert-level translation (think diplomacy, for instance), generally believed to be the domain of humans only (still).
First, machine translation has come a long, long way. Thanks to MT, we have the ability to work in many low-density and uncommon languages where there often aren't enough humans to teach the language. But it is a good tool for many lower-level usages. For the linguists I used to work with, it was a way to do triage, to do a quick and dirty first pass for the human to work from and get all the nuance. It's called "assisted work", using tools to help us work better or faster.
I'm not advocating complete machine translation for works of literature. I'm just trying to make folks aware of the big picture. I watched linguists dig in their heels and refuse to use tools our engineers tried to roll out to make their jobs easier. People are protective and wary when it comes to their jobs, I understand. But there are benefits to machine translation, too.
Such a great comment, and also a great reminder that book publishing has too often been way too late to the party when it comes to "assisted work," as in producing e-books. There ARE benefits to machine translation for some kinds of publications, really, many kinds of publications. What concerns me with this VBK initiative is that it doesn't sound as if it's fully thought through OR as if they want to discuss its pros and cons.
I'm open to AI but so far it has failed me in everything I've tried including book descriptions and synopsi. I heard it was good for initial book translation followed by a human proofread / edit, but after reading your post I also doubt it would be effective. Even total translations by humans leaves me wanting to read the book in the original language although I've heard that a great translator can make the book even better. Thanks for discussing this!
You're most welcome, Lora! And I hear you on poorly done human translations. I wish I knew several more languages well enough to read in them. . .