AI and I – an attempt at perspective

 

I admit to feeling somewhat hostile about the idea of using AI in my work as a professional translator.Thus, I felt (and still feel) a need to ascertain whether my internal resistance is stubbornness or intuition, two similar but not identical impulses. Consequently, I invested the time to listen to Doron’s Tzur excellent 2-hour presentation to the Israel Translators Association on March 26, 2025 on the subject of AI for translators. He gave an excellent introduction to the approach of AI as well as its practical use in translation, providing examples using several different AI applications. Granted, this presenting does not make an expert on the subject but the lecture did provide me with some updated data. I thus feel more at ease discussing my perspective. I now understand that an AI-based translation method does not fit me in terms of task/time allocation, the resulting standard and the produced style. Yet, while I do not see AI as a practical tool in the initial translation phase, I definitely can see its value in the editing stage, when it is possible.  In short, my personal answer is: “No, but”.

One of the Doron’s first points is that AI can and does change the time relationship between translation and QA, which include both finding errors and improving style. Specifically, he noted that the initial translation process, what he called the white paper stage, using AI takes minutes, if not less, allowing translators to focus their energy and skill and improving the text, rendering it both accurate and human. It should be noted that many translators, including myself, actually prefer the creative stage, the writing of the first draft, over the editing stage. An important passion in translation is the joy of playing with words, preferably in at least two languages. Thus, as demanding and time-consuming as translation can be, the work is fascinating and satisfying. By contrast, editing is a technical skill requiring great attention to detail and great discipline. Consequently, as I have no great desire to specialize in editing, I prefer the traditional method of translation, i.e., without AI.

Another point made by Doron is that AI is becoming or has become the new standard. He noted that it is possible to produce a workable translation of even long texts in hours, not days. I certainly do not dispute his assessment of time requirements or creation of a standard. However, I do challenge the worthiness of the standard. Written communication, especially in English, necessarily involves polishing and repolishing. Each QA session reveals more underlying issues, theoretically infinite but in practice limited by delivery deadlines. Clearly, any translation produced and edited in three hours lacks that polish if even it suffers from no concrete language error. Thus, it is possible to produced rushed translation but the issue is to what standard.  I am aware that, historically, people have come to accept lower quality standards, e.g. cars and clothes, but I find that disturbing.

Finally, AI, because it is based on statistics, not intelligence (Doron’s words), produces a clear but somehow flawed text based. To paraphrase Doron, average is never good as the 50% of the other texts are better.  The actual level of finishing depends on the skill and knowledge of the editor, many of whom are not even native speakers. Consequently, the AI-produced and human-edited translation often is correct but off, like a fluent but non-native speaker telling a story. Everything is clear but a real person would not write that. For many purposes, this artificialness is not an issue, in particular when a person only requires the translation to ascertain the main idea or find a detail. However, if the writer wishes to move the reader to buy, be inspired or any other action, this dissonance ruins the effect. People believe writers and speakers because they are authentic even if their facts are not quite accurate. Effective written communication must reflect the writer’s voice, not the statistical average. Therefore, I feel that using an AI-produced translation does not serve the needs of most if not all my customers’ needs.

One of the most attractive features of AI was its editing capacity. The ability of AI to identify errors of all types, including context-based spelling errors on some applications, is highly useful and a significant improvement on Word’s Spellcheck and even Grammarly, to name a few non-AI applications. However, to use these AI-tools efficiently requires consistent effort and time investment in attaining the computer skills and keep up with the weekly changes and newest versions. Moreover, translators cannot upload many legal, commercial and medical documents  due to confidentiality issues. I would love to upload the first draft 18,000 words I am working onto AI but will not do so because of the fear of it entering the public realm. Finally, it should be noted that most older people and quite a few younger people are not native to technology.  Yet, for many translators, using AI for editing makes sense both in terms of effectiveness and economics.

If I view the translation economic equation as time/effort as compared to income, at this moment at least, I feel that it is correct decision for me is to ignore AI but to keep an eye on it. AI is not the end of translation just as Computer Aided Translation and Google translations did not destroy the profession. Clearly, AI will change the industry but in what manner and which degree, nobody can say. It remains for each translator, or any other professional for that matter, to examine and decide, as Kirstie and Phil would say, to love it or leave it. I am leaving it for the moment.