mistakes – Vertaalbureau MOTTE

Based on experience my colleague Markéta Brožová Hanelová said: “As for interpreting, I don’t think this profession will be easily erased, but similarly to translation, the developments are not driven by the rising AI-translation quality, but rather by clients willing to take risks in exchange for huge savings.”

A recent example of errors by AI is “Ich have Erfahrung mit Didaktik und Sprachlernmaterialien”. “I have” was translated by “Ich have” instead of “Ich habe”.

Some people think the AI does that to mark it as an AI translation. But those markings use special combinations of successive synonyms, not mistakes.
It’s a mystery why it came up with “Ich have”.

A translation with a CAT tool or even with MT wouldn’t do that, because what you have entered correctly in CAT or MT will be reproduced correctly. AI is trained on an enormous amount of source material, and should not come up with “Ich have”. The volume of material would average out mistakes like that. Theoretically, that is.

You could argue that the blunder is easy to notice, but there are a few problems.

First of all, the types of mistakes AI makes are clearly unpredictable. It could be anything, and therefore it demands extra attention. Not only are there seemingly easy to notice problems, but you could also be tackled by mistakes in specialised vocabulary. And that’s tricky business.

Secondly, the user cannot trust AI if one of the two languages is unknown to him. You still have to be good in the source and the target language, because otherwise you’re going to miss errors. And on top of that, you also have to know the specialised vocabulary in both languages, which is especially treacherous because different terms might superficially be the same, whereas they aren’t in reality.

Basically all problems stem from the fact that AI does not reason, but gambles when it chooses words. It’s based on the most frequent occurrences of word combinations, not on the meaning, because it doesn’t understand things.

AI is everywhere.
The odd thing is it looks to me as if people just got recently aware of it although as a translator we have been using it for years.
The translation systems became gradually more clever. Because of that, there’s nothing new to it.
Unfortunately, what isn’t new either, is the simplistic views held by outsiders on automation.
Only yesterday I was in touch with somebody who thought it was possible to translate 400 pages for a mere 200 euro’s from English to Dutch. Did they really not see that 0.50 euro’s/page isn’t feasable for any system, however automated and advanced it is?
But the real problem is some believe you can do away with translators altogether.
Lately I found a website of one of my endclients, which obviously didn’t send all his texts via my agent to me, because there was a mistake on the home page, even in bold text. An adverb was treated as a noun. It’s a word, or rather a phrase, which is very tricky in Dutch because of the spelling differences for the two meanings.
I was flabbergasted and researched all the work I had already done for them, and didn’t find it in any file. It was clearly something they had done by using MT or AI. And, of course, the automated systems didn’t notice the differences.
I even noticed a second mistake, which also was the result of automated translation systems, in that case a problem by using a CAT tool. Although such systems can be very useful, they often hide differences which pop up because pieces of translations are glued together. But in changing the lingustic context by making new sentences putting together parts of old sentences or combining parts of old sentences with other words, those parts often have to be changed.
Worse is that it was on a website which promotes judicial actions, and I wonder how people are going to trust a company offering that kind of actions if you see mistakes on the home page. Cutting out the human in the loop causes mistakes by which you lose clients, revenue and support.