The ending is a really powerful point. Most people apparently agree on two things:
1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.
2. AI is a terrible replacement for me - my skills are at such a high level that it’s almost theoretical that it’ll ever be good enough to replace me for 90% of what I get paid to do. It’s a tool at best.
This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it.
xp84
Slight tangent into translations:
I read two translations of the book "The Master and Margarita". My first read was so boring I couldn't help but stop reading before the end of the first chapter. I can't find the copy and the name of the person who translated it, but this one had all the Russian nicknames translated. It kept talking about a guy called homeless. I thought it was just a bad book and dismissed it for years. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about with this book.
But then, I stumbled upon the translation by Diana Burgin and Katherine Tiernan O'Connor. Although I don't speak Russian, I think this is as good as it gets. They did a phenomenal job.
You can see the same effect with the mechanical translation of the book "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin, where the government is called "United State" easily confused with the "United States". The translation that called it "One State" was so much better.
ibudiallo
An honest to god article full of em dashes that's not because it was AI but because it was a human using them as a crutch to get around crafting sentences that flow naturally. Almost brings a tear to my eye.
Drupon
You'd be laughed at if you said that ChatGPT could help you with graduate level mathematics in 2024, but this year, AI models on simple prompts are solving previously unsolved Erdos problems.
It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural values, etc. all the things cited as stuff humans can do but AI can't, AI can currently do if given enough context. But more importantly, all those things aren't magical tasks that can only occur inside a human skull, they are a product of information processing, its just the information processing that has been hard to make computers good at, but so far it appears AI keeps getting better.
I'm all for humans having special value that is not attached to their ability to perform useful work. However denying the abilities of AI models seems to be a common mistake many people are making, and sadly reality catches up to these people before they can emotionally prepare.
atleastoptimal
I have no doubt that the writer is better at translating than AI, but I have to say that AI translation has gotten so good that I'm not sure how much longer translation work will be there, or rather it might end up being more about auditing.
For example, I just read the Lawrence Ellsworth translation of The Three Musketeers, which I very thoroughly enjoyed. I don't speak or read French, but from my understanding Ellsworth's translation is considered one of the more accurate translations of the work.
Out of curiosity, I sic'd Claude Fable on the original French version of The Three Musketeers and told it to translate accurately, but also try and keep the same jovial tone as the original and do not censor anything. After it was done, I didn't read the entire output, but I did compare a few individual chapters between the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation.
They were honestly remarkably similar. As far as I could tell, nothing was substantially different from the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation. I do think that the prose for the Ellsworth translation was a bit better, but the prose for the Fable one was actually perfectly readable. Again, I don't speak French so I cannot say for sure, but I do not believe that I would have gotten a significantly different experience had I read the Fable version instead of the Ellsworth version.
Now, it's possible (and likely) that this is somewhat self-fulfilling; Fable might have been trained using Ellsworth's translation and as such it's very directly able to crib from it; sadly since I do not speak any language outside of English, there's sort of a catch-22: the only way I can compare the accuracy of a translation is to compare against other translations, but if other translations exist then that will likely influence the results, and if a translation doesn't already exist then I have no way of auditing it.
I'm still going to continue reading through Ellsworth's translations for the subsequent stories simply because that feels more canonical, and as I said I do think the prose was a bit better.
tombert
Hey guys,
I just found out you were discussing my article, so obviously I had to come here. ;-)
I’ll take the time to read the thread properly because, hey, you took the time to read my article. Also, I genuinely enjoy reading and I’m curious to see what you think about AI.
The anecdote in the article is real, by the way. I only changed her title.
With AI, I went from “surely this won’t affect me” to “AI is dumb” — no, I was dumb, I just didn’t know how to prompt it — and now I’m at the “how can I make it work for me?” stage, while still hoping employers, clients and, well, the entire world realize it’s NOT a magic button.
It’s crazy how unreliable it can be. Sure, it can translate in the sense that it can give you an idea of what was said. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. I could give a million examples...
zhuli
I think it's an interesting perspective, because translation is one of the jobs that I (a) hear is the first to lose work due to AI, and (b) often used as an example of "acceptable" AI by people who are skeptics of LLMs and AI-generated art.
mapmeld
Out of curiosity, I pasted an article in French I was reading a few minutes before coming across this thread into ChatGPT and asked for a translation into English. It was certainly passable from a functional perspective, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to translate an article from a language I don't understand. But it was not professional-quality work. There were a couple instances where the French grammar was mistranslated, and the writing was perfunctory, not going into any effort to have the article flow like it was originally written in English instead of simply translating each sentence literally. Would I read an article written like this? A short one. A novel? Definitely not.
AnodicElegy
"we all more or less look the same in gym clothes"
Maybe my brain works differently than the author, but I'm surprised at this statement. Gym clothes don't change recognition for me, it's about the face, body, posture, clothes don't really enter into it. For me it is nonsensical enough to be suspicious.
And for a human centric perspective, not recognizing who someone is sad, it's knowing that you probably won't meet them again so it's not worth it, the community isn't there. Where community and interpersonal relationships between people are something we still hold dearly.
acyou
What’s unfortunate is that the market that is willing to pay for high-quality human translation has shrunken considerably.
comments (10)
1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.
2. AI is a terrible replacement for me - my skills are at such a high level that it’s almost theoretical that it’ll ever be good enough to replace me for 90% of what I get paid to do. It’s a tool at best.
This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it.
xp84
I read two translations of the book "The Master and Margarita". My first read was so boring I couldn't help but stop reading before the end of the first chapter. I can't find the copy and the name of the person who translated it, but this one had all the Russian nicknames translated. It kept talking about a guy called homeless. I thought it was just a bad book and dismissed it for years. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about with this book.
But then, I stumbled upon the translation by Diana Burgin and Katherine Tiernan O'Connor. Although I don't speak Russian, I think this is as good as it gets. They did a phenomenal job.
You can see the same effect with the mechanical translation of the book "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin, where the government is called "United State" easily confused with the "United States". The translation that called it "One State" was so much better.
ibudiallo
Drupon
It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural values, etc. all the things cited as stuff humans can do but AI can't, AI can currently do if given enough context. But more importantly, all those things aren't magical tasks that can only occur inside a human skull, they are a product of information processing, its just the information processing that has been hard to make computers good at, but so far it appears AI keeps getting better.
I'm all for humans having special value that is not attached to their ability to perform useful work. However denying the abilities of AI models seems to be a common mistake many people are making, and sadly reality catches up to these people before they can emotionally prepare.
atleastoptimal
For example, I just read the Lawrence Ellsworth translation of The Three Musketeers, which I very thoroughly enjoyed. I don't speak or read French, but from my understanding Ellsworth's translation is considered one of the more accurate translations of the work.
Out of curiosity, I sic'd Claude Fable on the original French version of The Three Musketeers and told it to translate accurately, but also try and keep the same jovial tone as the original and do not censor anything. After it was done, I didn't read the entire output, but I did compare a few individual chapters between the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation.
They were honestly remarkably similar. As far as I could tell, nothing was substantially different from the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation. I do think that the prose for the Ellsworth translation was a bit better, but the prose for the Fable one was actually perfectly readable. Again, I don't speak French so I cannot say for sure, but I do not believe that I would have gotten a significantly different experience had I read the Fable version instead of the Ellsworth version.
Now, it's possible (and likely) that this is somewhat self-fulfilling; Fable might have been trained using Ellsworth's translation and as such it's very directly able to crib from it; sadly since I do not speak any language outside of English, there's sort of a catch-22: the only way I can compare the accuracy of a translation is to compare against other translations, but if other translations exist then that will likely influence the results, and if a translation doesn't already exist then I have no way of auditing it.
I'm still going to continue reading through Ellsworth's translations for the subsequent stories simply because that feels more canonical, and as I said I do think the prose was a bit better.
tombert
I just found out you were discussing my article, so obviously I had to come here. ;-)
I’ll take the time to read the thread properly because, hey, you took the time to read my article. Also, I genuinely enjoy reading and I’m curious to see what you think about AI.
The anecdote in the article is real, by the way. I only changed her title.
With AI, I went from “surely this won’t affect me” to “AI is dumb” — no, I was dumb, I just didn’t know how to prompt it — and now I’m at the “how can I make it work for me?” stage, while still hoping employers, clients and, well, the entire world realize it’s NOT a magic button.
It’s crazy how unreliable it can be. Sure, it can translate in the sense that it can give you an idea of what was said. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. I could give a million examples...
zhuli
mapmeld
AnodicElegy
Maybe my brain works differently than the author, but I'm surprised at this statement. Gym clothes don't change recognition for me, it's about the face, body, posture, clothes don't really enter into it. For me it is nonsensical enough to be suspicious.
And for a human centric perspective, not recognizing who someone is sad, it's knowing that you probably won't meet them again so it's not worth it, the community isn't there. Where community and interpersonal relationships between people are something we still hold dearly.
acyou
layer8