8 ms·
Why was the comment of the author of the translation-site that explains the methodology flagged / dead? The mere fact that the translation was AI-assisted shou
by domschl 2mo ago
Why was the comment of the author of the translation-site that explains the methodology flagged / dead?
The mere fact that the translation was AI-assisted shouldn't be a reason to flag a comment. AI translations, especially supervised translations, can actually achieve a reasonable level of quality.
Disagreement on AI philosophy shouldn't be a reason to flag a contribution.
- kensai 2mo ago"Disagreement on AI philosophy shouldn't be a reason to flag a contribution." Amen!
- sweisman 2mo agoA professional book editor and Hebrew translator said the translation of the one work he checked out was "impressive". Others have responded equally positively to the Latin translations. AI as a panacea is overwrought, but there are genuine positive uses of it. Would critics rather have NO translations of these pivotal works?
- NetOpWibby 2mo agoYes, because if a human didn’t do it, how will we know of the translation is free of mistakes? /s
- sweisman 2mo agoProfessional translators don't throw around the word "impressive" like that. You don't, yet I still stand by my work. I translated some books up to four times as I refined the process. The default behavior is repeatedly to not attempt to translate text it can't resolve for whatever reason. AIs do have a tendency to hallucinate, and I expended a lot of effort on minimizing this problem to the point it can be considered mitigated.
- ButlerianJihad 2mo agoProfessional publishers collect blurbs which are attached to real names of real people, and bona fide reviewers write in full sentences with context, without
- sweisman 2mo agoIt's good enough for me. I'm not publicizing his name without permission. He is quite well-known and until I moved recently, was a neighbor of mine.
- flir 2mo ago> Would critics rather have NO translations of these pivotal works? I sent a Classicist the link because it's adjacent to his area of interest, and by chance he addressed this question. I don't think he'll mind me quoting him: "There's a lot of this shite popping up at the moment. [...] There seems to be some idea that publishing a shit translation of an untranslated work is better than no translation, but that's obviously wrong." Speaking for myself: Some of the anomaly rules are obviously patches to deal with a specific situation, and might be better off in code. But relying on the chatbot to flag wider anomalies is odd. How does it know what it doesn't know? At a minimum, I'd use a spread of models to gain binocular vision, and I wouldn't publish until a human was prepared to sign their reputation to it. In other words, I think what you've got there is a first draft of a translation, not a translation. Given that, if you are going to publish, I think the NoDerivatives restriction is a mistake. But that's a minor issue.
- sweisman 2mo agoSo, he's commenting on something he didn't read and compares it to shit? Good to know. I'll ignore him. I understand his point. Still, obviously my rhetorical question had in mind that what I do is good enough quality to make the question worthwhile. Better than a "first draft". As mentioned in another comment, some works were translated up to four times as I refined the process.
- flir 2mo agoThe thing with LLM-generated code is you can test it on a real CPU - that's a tight feedback loop with a cast-iron verification mechanism. Translations of human language have no analogous mechanism. So yes, the translation might be perfect, but until a human puts their reputation on the line and says "I certify this translation is accurate", it's still shit. It's shit because of the way it was created, not its absolute accuracy (or otherwise). He doesn't need to read it. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you, and I know I won't change your mind. We just have different philosophical positions on this, I think.
- sweisman 2mo ago
- names_are_hard 2mo agoI'm not a book editor or translator, just a guy with a reasonable familiarity with rabbinic literature in its original language. I spent some time reading the translation of Tzemach David, and I can say the following: it's legible to me but the AI is clearly lacking a style guide. It's inconsistent about what it chooses to translate and what it chooses to transliterate, and when it transliterates, it's inconsistent in how it does so. Eg "Rosh mesivta" vs "metivta" vs "exilarch". The AI is drawing on a hodge-podge of training materials with diverse audiences and no clear audience of its own.
- sweisman 2mo agoCan you email me with more info? It is likely the distinctions you noted are from the source. There is a glossary maintained that keeps specific words or phrases consistent. But slightly different phrases can resolve in inconsistent ways. The problem is not the AI, but rather a weakness in the design. In other words, a bug. Or a regression and we call them today. It is fixable.
- names_are_hard 2mo agoI think that I might not have been clear enough. Of course Rosh mesivta and exilarch differ in the source, but I don't think a human translator would choose to translate one title and not the other. In circles where people use the word exilarch I am almost 100% positive no one would say Rosh mesivta, and the kind of folks who use Rosh mesivta in conversation would say Reish Galusa, not exilarch. I can't imagine that metivta and mesivta are not both transliterations of the word מתיבתא. You need to identify the target audience and stick to their language. Are you translating for a general lay audience? An academic audience? Contemporary religious Jews? If the latter, is it a yeshivish audience or a wider group? How much familiarity with Hebrew is expected from the reader?
- sweisman 2mo agoThank you. Your comments are very helpful. I am working on updating the translation agents and fixing the issue in the existing works. If you'd like, you can contact me privately and I will let you know when the updates are published. Or just check the site occasionally for updates.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- bawolff 2mo ago> AI translations, especially supervised translations, can actually achieve a reasonable level of quality. That may be true, but also not really what i'm worried about. With AI on an ancient book written from a world view very different from the contemporary one, i'd worry more about misleading translations.
- sweisman 2mo agoMisleading in what way?
- bawolff 2mo agoAI is famous for hallucinating and misunderstanding subtle points, especially when you get away from the typical stuff it is trained on.
- sweisman 2mo agoYes and know. The biggest problem I've experienced vis a vis hallucinations is tabular data. In prose, where context is anchored by surrounding words. Even the subtle points are conveyed appropriately. Check out a work or two.