How long will humans be needed for translation? | Metaglossia: The Translation World | Scoop.it
AI dominates the translation business, but for high-stakes work, humans are still needed.

Google's translation service handles one trillion words per month
That doesn't count the others: DeepL, Microsoft, Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini, not to mention made-to-measure corporate translation systems.


"How long will humans be needed for translation?...


In April, Google said people are now translating one trillion words a month with Google Translate.


That doesn't count the others: DeepL, Microsoft, Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini, not to mention made-to-measure corporate translation systems.


Direct sales of machine translation (i.e. outside general AI subscriptions) were worth an estimated $1.4bn (£1bn) last year.


AI translation is the "right call" in many cases says John Zimmerman
"For plenty of use cases, raw AI translation is now the right call: multiplying your costs by 100 to catch the last few percent of errors isn't rational if you're translating internal documents or product listings," says John Zimmerman, founder of OKA (Open Knowledge Association), a Swiss non-profit that translates Wikipedia articles into other languages.


"For an encyclopedia it's different. Wikipedia runs on trust. A wrong fact can sit there for years and get cited by journalists and AI systems," he says.


With more than 10,000 published pieces, mostly into Spanish, Portuguese and English, OKA is, Zimmerman says, the single largest contributor of translated articles to the collaborative online encyclopedia.


Which is something it absolutely could not have become without AI.


"Translating 10,000 articles the traditional way would cost millions. In our process, the AI produces the draft, then a human translator checks every sentence," he explains.


But that human input is required less and less.


"The machine output is now good enough that skipping the human entirely has become a serious option, and a real temptation across the industry. Two or three years ago, with tools like DeepL, our translators still rewrote a good chunk of every draft.


"Today the prose often doesn't need fixing at all. So, the question is no longer whether AI translation is good, it clearly is, but whether it's good enough to remove the human," says Zimmerman.


Not yet, translators argue...


Last year OKA ran a study, funded by Wikimedia. It studied 119 articles, 10 language pairs and more than 1,000 hours of translator work.


"27% of the AI-generated text still got corrected before publication. Three quarters of those corrections were errors the AI introduced, and 5 to 6% of errors changed the meaning of the original text," says Zimmerman.


Eradicating those errors is likely to be challenging...


This is because probability is a crucial part of the way AI translates each word rather than another and what is probably correct is not the same as what is correct. Especially in the realm of something as subtle and surprising as language...


But perhaps the big moment will be when AI can show doubt..."


John Laurenson
Business reporter, Paris
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wxdjx27ypo
#metaglossia
#metaglossia_mundus