AI and the future of freelance translating – a perspective

 

Freelance translators, like many other professionals, see dark clouds. The media feeds stories on the ever-improving ability of AI to translate. Strangers innocently ask why anybody needs translators anymore. Customers and income decrease month to month. It is all quite depressing but not necessarily a full or accurate picture in the long term. On the contrary, paid translation needs are actually expanding. Moreover, the market niches that AI is destroying have been in decline for over a decade due to technological changes. In practice, AI changes the translation business but not only does it not eliminate freelance business but can even provide an opportunity to expand. It is reasonable to be cautiously optimistic despite all the apparent omens.

In terms of current trends for language service providers, which includes both agencies and freelancers, the future seems quite optimistic. Based on the total volume of the worldwide agencies, demand for linguistic services continues to increase steadily. Experts predict that the value of these services will increase approximately 28% from 2024 to 2027 to around 90 billion USD. World trade and the needs of international commerce will continue to feed the demand. To be fair, international agencies are taking a lion’s share of business with freelancers struggling with downward pressure on their rates. B2B business, without agencies, requires more marketing effort, skill and confidence, which many freelancers lack. Yet, in practice, there is a steady demand for translators.

It is important to note that translation technology, which includes but is not limited to AI, shapes which niches will remain and even expand and which ones will decline and disappear. For ten years, machine translation of all types has automated the translation process. Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) and translation memory began defining the work process over 15 years ago. Machine translation, most notably Google Translation, has made simple translation accessible and free to the average person for almost 20 years. More specialized translation memories, in particular neural translation in recent years, make it possible to effectively translate large masses of specialized legal and other material in a short time. There is less and less work available for a general translator because of the plethora of no-cost and sufficiently effective alternatives. By contrast, these machine translations, including AI, struggle to produce effective results when the message goes beyond mere understanding but requires precision or a human touch.  Some fields suffering from a lack of proficient human translators include medical, marketing, legal and technical translation. Furthermore, the need for official certification of government documents for court and bureaucratic purposes creates a steady market for certified translators of all types. Specialists can find lucrative niches.

The various language technologies have changed the whole panorama of translation in terms of methods and tasks. The use of CAT tools is a requirement for many projects and has significantly increased productivity and shaped its rates. Machine translation serves as a basis for many initial drafts, either in terms of suggestions or complete translation. AI can instantly produce a large-scale translation, albeit of highly uneven quality. Thus, the translator’s work may involve editing machine translation, actual translation or both. Clearly, not every freelancer wishes to be involved in editing but those that accept it and do it efficiently and effectively are in demand. By contrast, those freelancers that completely reject technology find their market shrinking. The name of the game is constant adaptation.

Thus, it is clear that translation is not only not a dying profession but instead one with a future. Technology will shape its future, as it has done in its past and present. Specialized and flexible translators can find an opportunity to make a living. The most difficult period is the transition during which the advantages and limitations of each new digital tool emerge and define the market. AI is not the end of human translators just as Google Translate and its cousins were not. They merely shaped the profession. It is most probable that for the foreseeable future human translators will continue to handle those tasks where it is important to fully convey the meaning of one language in another language and where approximation is not sufficient as well as ensure that machine translation does not create unnecessary or even dangerous mistranslations. Many current AI uses will return to human translation as issues arise from AI translation.  I am cautiously optimistic about the future of translation despite AI.

Unlabeled futures

I was born, fortunately, in a non-diagnosing time in terms of assessment of children. Specifically, during my school years, my teachers, parents and administrators told us (or made it understood) what we good at and what we were not good at. These skill areas were academic, such as reading or math, motoric, such as skill in certain sports, and social, such as the ability to sit attentively in class or interact with our peers. I don’t believe that there were any pupils in my elementary school that thought they believed they were great, poor or average in everything.  We were like characters from a role-play game: strength in one aspect was at the price of weakness in another.

Yet, with all these assessments, I cannot recall that we ever told that we had any specific syndrome. This is probably due to the lack of awareness of such matters as well as lack of available professionals available to make such formal diagnoses. In some ways, we were as imperfect as the adults around us, which was perfectly normal. The positive aspect of this medical ignorance was that we were never told what could not do in the future. It was understood that children develop at different paces in different areas. In other words, on a skill percentile basis, the results of 6^th grade could be very different than those of 2^nd grade. Unless parents made some special effort, the improvement was completely organic and often painful, without outside assistance.

To give an example, from my early report cards, comments from parents and my memories, during elementary school, I was a serious, painfully shy student with a quick grasp of material and a cooperative attitude, a nerd if you wish. My weaknesses included poor handwriting, difficulty in learning how to read (remedied by around 3^rd grade), poor hand-eye and motoric coordination and over sensitiveness. For the purposes of the record, some 50+ years later, I am an experienced teacher with a strong presence in the classroom, a translator and editor. I play tennis and folk dance and married (twice actually), as well as raised a child to adulthood. So, one way or another, I have overcome all those weaknesses and created a complete life.

The fact that I never knew that I had (and have) two diagnosable conditions meant that I constructed no psychological barriers to my success. The cognitive barriers still exist; certain tasks are more difficult for me than for others, meaning I have to take more time or find different ways to accomplish them. That statement is true for all people of all ages and thus has no proscriptive importance. My refusal to state those conditions is precisely due to the fact that I do not want to have my capabilities labeled on the basis of a term. Instead, I want to be judged on what I actually do.

The implication for parents, educators, leaders and, most importantly, individuals of all ages, whether in schools or businesses, is that formal diagnoses, even when correct, are not predictors of current or future ability. Persons with dyslexia have become outstanding CEOs, albeit with a different style. A person with OCD can be a highly effective manager in all aspects. Perfectionists can evolve into ideal problem solvers. In the bottom line, individual choice, skill sets and circumstances determine the basis for personal success at any time, not medical labels. Ignorance can be bliss.

Machine translation and Orwell

For many translators, machine translation is a combination of nuclear war and global warming. There is a sense that it will wipe them out from the map but they hope that it won’t happen in this generation. This week, I skimmed through two articles discussing MT. My thoughts were led not the future of the profession but to the future of English.

The first article, written by Florian Faes and cited by Slator in its weekly newsletter, discusses the linguistic differences between texts translated by MT as compared to human translation after editing. Among the writer’s conclusions, albeit on a limited literary sample, was MT texts tend to have a higher resemblance to their originals in terms of structure even when this structure differs in the target language as well be “simpler and more normalized”.

In another article, also cited by Slator, Jochen Hummel, the creator of the Trados computer assisted translation (CAT) tool, declared that his tool would no longer be used in the future but instead all human translation would be based on MT. In other words, the opus of previously written text will standardize our language. As I see it, what was will be in a much stronger form than today and subject to manipulation by corporate and governmental organization.

These two observations led me to recall Orwell’s 1984. For those who have forgotten or simply never read the book, he described a world where the government controlled everybody (Big Brother). Interestingly, one of its main tools was its control of language. English vocabulary had been reduced to the bare minimum. For example, a negative was expressed by adding “un” to the positive, e.g., unhungry. All texts were online (yes, this book was written 1949) and amended as political winds changed so that the public never had any proof of any change in policy or thinking. Looking at North Korea in 2019, Orwell would be appalled but not shocked.

Given that English is the dominant language of communication worldwide for the foreseeable future and assuming that machine language, however “artificial” it sounds initially, becomes the statistical and controlling norm, it is not hard to imagine a world in which people’s thoughts are expressed in intentionally simplified language and form. It would be undoing Dickens and Shakespeare, to name a few.

It is clear that MT has its place and will not disappear. It also clear that MT will have a huge influence on translation project management. Looking at the development of chat language, which is also simplified in many ways, it can be argued that this language is no less rich and individual. However, I still fear the gradual “poorification” of English not as a result of government action but instead due to industrial pressures.  I hope Orwell was wrong in this prediction and that 1984 will never come.

Hebrew legalities

As a professional legal translator, I often have to cite Israeli laws, specifically their name, articles or both. Just to make it clear, Google translate is of no use here in this language combination. The reason is that that certain idiosyncrasies typical of Hebrew affect some basic elements of the legal language and require some cross-cultural thinking in order to produce a proper translation

The first striking difference is the name of the law, specifically compound noun constructions. In English, if two nouns are joined together, the s for the plural is only added to the last noun, e.g., party conventions or Board of Director meetings. By contrast, Hebrew grammar allows either noun to be plural as relevant. Since a country can name its laws, including in English, in any way it wants, granted “informally”, the recognized English name of many Israeli laws sounds strange to English ears.  A few examples are the Companies Law and the Animals Manure Law. The translator is thus obliged to search, either through the Israeli Ministry of Justice or other site, and accept the recognized name, however awkward that may sound in English.

The name of the law is always followed by the year of its enactment, which presents its own issue.  In Israel, there are two calendars, the Hebrew, which is lunar based, and Gregorian, which is sun based. To make matters more interesting, the Hebrew year begins sometime in September or October on a varying basis. Accordingly, the name of the law in Hebrew notes both years, e.g. 5779 – 2019, in that order.  Having the identical ending digit is not automatic as a law passed between October and December could carry a Latin calendar year with final digit one less than the Hebrew one, admittedly a rare occurrence. The bigger problem in translation is what to do with the Hebrew year. Outside of Israel, nobody cares about the Hebrew year. Some translators insist on writing it, probably due to due diligence. I personally ignore it and only write the only one that a foreign audience will understand and need to know, the Gregorian one.

The numbering of articles and subsection within the law is a bit tricky due to Hebrew use of letters for numbers. To explain, each letter in Hebrew has a numerical value. The first nine letters are 1-9, the next nine digits are 20-90, etc. As an example, יד [yud-daled] is 14, i.e., ten and four. When a law in Hebrew has a short series of subsections, the first nine Hebrew letters, the translator has to choose which English equivalent to apply, letters or numbers. Is ד (daled] 4 or d?   Afterwards, it become easier to choose as the Hebrew will be marked as a number or letter, as in יד or נ [nun].  Generally, the letters are translated as letters but sometimes numbers may be used if lower level subsections exist, which require the use of the letters, i.e. Article 26(a) as compared to Article 26(1)(a).

Finally, the modal of legal necessity does not exist in Hebrew. English has an historical, albeit misused, word shall and a simplified modern word must to express the legal duty of a party. Hebrew uses the future tense in most cases. When translating statures, the translator must avoid the trap of maintaining the Hebrew structure and apply the English structure, i.e., the police must (shall) submit an indictment within 48 hours of arrest, not the police will submit an indictment within 48 hours of arrest. The future tense is a false friend in this case.

Thus, the job of a translator, legal and otherwise, is to transmit the words and culture of one language to another vocabulary and culture, not always a simple task. It is possible to disagree on the manner of doing it but all translators recognize its necessity. In legal translation, where precision and understanding are vital, the details make the translator.

Premature death notice – in translation

My wife and I just attended the IAPTI (International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters) conference in Valencia, Spain. Some 200 translators and interpreters from five continents participated. A good time was had by all. While there was no formal theme to this conference, we learned (as we already knew) that the reported imminent disappearance of human translation is mistaken. On the contrary, translators and interpreters can look forward to a long, fruitful career.

The conference began appropriately by bridging the past and present. Emily Wilson explained her new translation of Homer’s Odyssey into English in terms of elucidating the many individual perspectives embedded in the narratives of that book, which had been often ignored by previous translation. In other words, her modern translation emphasizes the diversity of viewpoints. On a similar level, Sergio Viaggio make a strong argument for interpreting from the first language into the second language in handing testimony of witnesses in international crimes against humanity hearings by emphasizing the importance of strengthening the voice of the victims, even at the expense of the ease of understanding of the justices. This need to amplify the voice of the underprivileged, a modern concern, was present in many lectures, including in regards to women’s rights, the handicapped and IAPTI African initiative. These were only a few of the lectures and topics.

As for the future of the profession, it is clear that human translators will continue to exist, albeit with adjustment to the modern world. Clearly, machine translation, whether neural translation or Google translate, will take on an increasing role in both general and standardized texts. However, whenever complete understanding is necessary, professional translators have a clear role. As several lectures explained,  one role is to transcreate, transferring the message without using the exact and inappropriate words of the original. Moreover, as Ralf Lemster explained, translators have two main paths to success: attack the mass market applying the technical time-saving tips that Xose Castro succinctly and enthusiastically provided or specialize in narrow area applying the business savvy of Allesandra Vita.

In any case, we left Valencia with hope, direction and optimism and fueled by the content of the lectures, lecturers and participants. The challenge they consciously and unconsciously posed to the translators, that is to grow, observe, adapt and improve, is a bit daunting but actually quite achievable. If we do so, translation will be alive and kicking for a long time to come.

Digital Idiot Savant

The world of translation for both the general public and professionals is the midst of a revolution.  Machine translation has taken off.  Google Translate may be its most public form but far from its most important use. Corporations such as Nestle and Amazon are using and developing better forms of machine translation. 

To explain the process, phrases and sentences are compared with company-prepared glossaries, known Internet-accessible translations and grammar rules to create translated documents. Of course, as anybody that has ever used Google Translate can testify, the results are sometimes ludicrous but more and more often quite satisfactory.

Recently, I post-edited a very long machine translation of a complex tender offer in French.  I felt I was dealing with an idiot savant in the sense that genius and stupidity were randomly mixed. While for confidentially reasons I cannot provide specific examples, I can say that a perfect translation of a complex sentence would often be followed by an irrelevant translation of a simple sentence. The same word would be translated differently in consecutive sentences. The grammar ranged from Oxford correct to awful first year ESL student. In short, unlike human translation, there was no rhyme and reason to the quality of the translation.

This required me to treat each sentence as completely isolated in terms of my confidence level in the translation. When editing human translation, it is a bit like observing the driver ahead of you: you quickly get a sense of whether to trust or avoid him/her. Here, my mind had to refuse to trust any translation based on the previous segments. Even harder psychologically, I could not even say to myself “what an idiot” or “what a good translator” because the translator was digital. All in all, it was a very different editing experience.

Many translators fear that machine translation is the end of the profession. The probable truth is the opposite. Translation is one of the fastest growing professions in the world thanks to the world-village phenomenon, among other reasons. It is clear that machine translation handles certain jobs, especially large masses of text and very standard email messages, much more efficiently and cost-effectively than human translation. However, technical translation of all kinds, including medical and legal, requires the human brain both with and without computer help. As we have all experienced, there is nothing more intelligent and stupid than a computer.

(Thumbs) Ups and Down of English Grammar Usage Change

Language and generation are closely linked.  By hearing the words and structure of a sentence, it is possible to know the approximate age of the speaker and, to a lesser degree, writer.  It is clear that since languages are living and dynamic, they will evolve in time. However, just as in regards to the changes in our mind and body as we grow older, we are entitled to our opinions about them.  Alas, as with our complaints about reduced vision, expanded stomachs, and disappearing hair, complaints don’t make any difference.  Still, it does provide some satisfaction to voice them.

The gradual disappearance of whom, the ithers, and the present perfect for emphasis saddens me for some reason.  I like the sound of phrases such as “To whom am I speaking” and “For whom it may concern” not to mention that classic Hemmingway title For Whom the Bell Tolls (Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia was a far superior book on the Spanish Civil War).  They simply have more character than “who am talking to”, for example. As for the “ithers”, hither, whither, and thither, the last surviving remnants of the Latin locative case in English are only expressed in two expressions: come hither and whither to.  For those younger readers, locative expresses direction as compared to location and thrives in Russian and Hebrew in such forms куда [kuda] instead of где [gde], сюда [syuda] instead of здесь [sdyess], туда [tuda] instead of там [tam] and לאן [la’an] instead of איפה [aifo], שמה [shama] instead of שם [sham] and הנה [hena] instead of כאן [kan] for where, there, and here in Russian and Hebrew, respectively.    Finally, Americans now commonly use the past simple instead of the present perfect in the following sentence: I just woke up instead I have just woken up.  The latter form, still preferred by UK speakers I am told, better emphasizes the fact that I don’t want to talk or make decisions until I drink my first cup of coffee or tea.  In short, it adds flavor and texture to the language, which is desirable in the right proportion.

So as not appear as a grumpy old man fighting progress, there are usage changes that I like, really.  The almost complete extinction of the word shall brings me great joy.  The only time I see it is in the legal texts I translate, which are archaic anyway and don’t count for measuring active use.  The reason for my joy is who in the hell could remember the stupid rule: Future: I shall, we shall, all the others “will”; determinative: I will, we will, everything else “shall”.  Moreover, why should we remember that rule?  I have the same sentiment to the long forgotten restriction of the word can to ability only and not permission.  I hated the elementary school teacher answer to the question “Can I go to the bathroom?”: Yes, you can, but you may not.”  Now it is much clearer: “you can’t” without the grammar lesson.

I just have one more small request for one word to disappear as fast as possible: awesome.  The sound of middle-aged sports announcers saying that the singing of the national anthem was “awesome” sounds like parents trying to copy their teenager’s language, i.e. pathetic and utterly unnatural.

So, language will change for better or worse, whether we like it or not.  Let me know if any change in your language that pains or gladdens your heart.