Machine translations are often brought up as a gotcha whenever I criticize LLMs.
-
@Gargron ultimately LLMs like any other software is a tool. It's all about how a human uses them.
Lets take photoshop as an example. Humans generate vast amounts of garbage photoshopped images. Ever been to deviant art?
And yet the same tool is used by professionals all day every day to create stuff we like and enjoy.
The same applies to LLM use, and back to my first reply. What you lament is low quality output a human shared. Meanwhile the tool gets used masterfully to great effect elsewhere
-
@Gargron while all your examples are 100% valid, I seriously question whether we would be able to manage to do that today. With the utter shambles most democracies are in currently, multi-national Corporations can run roughshod on environmental protection, worker safety, child protection and just about everything that past generations fought hard for.
imagine for a moment, the billionaires have been beheaded and the yachts sunk into the sea. the value in the output of workers 100% reinvested into local communities. all of it. none for colonial masters far away. the 20 hour work weeks and all human workers hands full of the satisfaction their efforts are meaningful... no more busy work for shareholders to skim value out of. only meaningful work. custom artisanal everything. housewares repaired by local handicrafters. clothes sewn and tailored to each body. homes and townhomes and communal living spaces built and maintained by cooperative owners. neighboring towns and regions and nations translating with loving care between the communities of meaning... interconnected with care.
-
I have the impression that primarily anglophone people don't read as much translated literature, because so much good literature already exists in their language, so this issue may not be as familiar within that demographic. As someone who did not grow up anglophone, I can tell you there is a world of difference between a good and a bad translation even when done by humans. Machine translations are not even on the scale.
True story: I wanted to read the novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" by Victor Hugo some years back, so I went to the bookstore and they had two translations. The first had a serious-looking cover and the other had a trashy-looking one, so naturally I bought the former. Started to read it. It was garbage! So I went back and exchanged for the trashy-looking book. A wonderful translation!
Moral of the story: you can't judge a book by its cover.
Also, translation is art.
-
@cygnathreadbare @Gargron yeah, that's a garbage way this technology has been developed. Unfortunately if we threw away every technology built on the back of people doing bad things we wouldn't have much technology, unfortunately.
I don't fault lamenting how it's come to be and even how it's used broadly. But claiming it's useless because some folks use it poorly isn't really accurate indicator of the technologies usefulness.
-
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
@Gargron You sound like me arguing against the inevitability of mass use of the cell phone.
I never understood why we gave up crystal clear audio, a two way simultaneous connection (yes, both parties could talk at the same time and hear wha5 the other had to say), and phone books for unintelligible garbled speak, dropped calls, delays, and no way to look up the damn phone number.
-
@melioristicmarie @Gargron okay, sure, maybe my toots are slop. So...what? I should be deleted as the OP implied of LLMs? How about all those folks making mediocre art over on deviant art? Disappear them too?
That's a bit of a moral quandary isn't it? How do we get the good stuff without the bad stuff?
You stand to make the world perfect if you can figure that out. I look forward to it.
-
@melioristicmarie @Gargron okay, sure, maybe my toots are slop. So...what? I should be deleted as the OP implied of LLMs? How about all those folks making mediocre art over on deviant art? Disappear them too?
That's a bit of a moral quandary isn't it? How do we get the good stuff without the bad stuff?
You stand to make the world perfect if you can figure that out. I look forward to it.
human, is fine. perfection is a scam sold by ponzi schemers who have no useful skill. second sons of the british empire looking for some purpose that makes daddy approve of their existence.
maybe... just maybe... talk to a human and ask them how you can help them, with your actual meat space body. then maybe you could find some meaning in life instead of trying to get techbros to think you are pretty.
-
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
@Gargron we also had Concorde but it wasn’t economically viable. I mention that because I find that economic arguments seem to be heard more readily than moral arguments. (I often find that moral arguments induce temporary deafness in pro-AI people.)
-
@Gargron It is a technology that humanity has been seeking for a long time. At least since the 1950s, with Turing and his colleagues.
Transformers are neural networks.
LLMs are transformers wrapped in some Python scripting.
Every neural network can be accurately represented as an Excel sheet, even if it ends up having billions of cells.
Since it's just addition and multiplication, the model is fully deterministic. Same input, same output. Not intelligent.
It's Python code that does probabilistic sampling of the output. It's just a few lines of well-understood math plus a dice roll. Again, not intelligent.
-
From what I've observed, people who claim that LLMs can replace artists don't understand art, people who claim that they can replace musicians don't understand music, people who claim that they can replace writers don't understand literature, and people who claim they can replace translators don't rely on translations. If I had a button that would erase LLMs from the world but it would take machine translations away (which is a false dichotomy anyway), I would absolutely still press it.
@Gargron is it art if a person uses words and an LLM to create and tweak an image until it's what they envisioned in their head?
Years ago I had a friend who insisted that those that used a computer (e.g. photoshop) to "draw" were not real artist and that it was letting the computer do the work. To him it wasn't art.
-
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
@Gargron if asbestos was invented last year it would be inevitable, I'm afraid.
When almost all legislative power has been captured by corporatism there's not much hope we could outlaw such poisons.
-
I have the impression that primarily anglophone people don't read as much translated literature, because so much good literature already exists in their language, so this issue may not be as familiar within that demographic. As someone who did not grow up anglophone, I can tell you there is a world of difference between a good and a bad translation even when done by humans. Machine translations are not even on the scale.
@Gargron Speaking as a human translator, I have to admit that machine translation has gotten a lot better over the past few years. I’ve been shocked at how good it is sometimes. But it’s still wrong often enough to be a problem. I make mistakes too, but I generally know when I’m having trouble understanding something and can flag it so someone else can check it. MT never knows whether it’s wrong (it never knows anything), and it sprays out plausible-seeming text that camouflages the problem. And of course, I’m just talking about the level of a factually correct translation, not even matters of style, etc.
-
I have the impression that primarily anglophone people don't read as much translated literature, because so much good literature already exists in their language, so this issue may not be as familiar within that demographic. As someone who did not grow up anglophone, I can tell you there is a world of difference between a good and a bad translation even when done by humans. Machine translations are not even on the scale.
@Gargron It's not so much that translated literature doesn't exist, it's that *publishers* think anglophone readers are scared of translated literature (I'm a professional translator, at the London Book Fair this week, and this subject has come up several times).
But yes, machine translation is bloody awful, and it's terrible to work with as a human translator too - it doesn't "make our lives easier", you have to throw it all out and start again from scratch. Except obviously you're only being pad a fraction of your normal translation rate because "it's easier".
It is not easier. It's never possible to merely edit a machine translated text and end up with something as good as a competent human translator could have produced.
Another conversation I'm having this week is how translators can convey their value to publishers and agents, but now I'm wondering whether we shouldn't also be asking how readers can convey their desire for human translated literature, and lots more of it.
Inevitably, translated literature is opening up a new world, new experiences, new ways of thinking and seeing, to the reader. We all need more of that to fight back against the narrow-minded control freakery of the right wing.
-
imagine for a moment, the billionaires have been beheaded and the yachts sunk into the sea. the value in the output of workers 100% reinvested into local communities. all of it. none for colonial masters far away. the 20 hour work weeks and all human workers hands full of the satisfaction their efforts are meaningful... no more busy work for shareholders to skim value out of. only meaningful work. custom artisanal everything. housewares repaired by local handicrafters. clothes sewn and tailored to each body. homes and townhomes and communal living spaces built and maintained by cooperative owners. neighboring towns and regions and nations translating with loving care between the communities of meaning... interconnected with care.
@melioristicmarie @DJGummikuh @Gargron That's a dreamy vision. Thank you. I love it.
-
human, is fine. perfection is a scam sold by ponzi schemers who have no useful skill. second sons of the british empire looking for some purpose that makes daddy approve of their existence.
maybe... just maybe... talk to a human and ask them how you can help them, with your actual meat space body. then maybe you could find some meaning in life instead of trying to get techbros to think you are pretty.
@Tekchip my walls are full of art by humans that some would call terrible... who the fuck cares? they have love and craft and pain and power from the hands and soul of a human creator. they are beautiful. i fucking love bad art.
slop generation is the nothingness.
just write your toot from your heart, fuck the machine. being human is fine.
@Gargron -
@melioristicmarie @DJGummikuh @Gargron That's a dreamy vision. Thank you. I love it.
@mason
hanging on to the hope we can survive as a species and get to the good stuff of loving each other up, bigly. ;
@DJGummikuh @Gargron -
Machine translations are often brought up as a gotcha whenever I criticize LLMs. It's worth pointing out two things: Machine translations existed decades before LLMs, and yes, machine translations are useful. However: I would never in my life read a machine translated book. Understanding what a social media post is talking about in rough terms? Sure. Literature? Absolutely not. Hell, have you ever seen machine translated subtitles? It's absolute garbage.
-
@geolaw @Tacas @Gargron their subtitles for the English dub are also terrible in a way that can only be machine generated without any oversight
Besides "misheard" words, missing punctuation and names changing their spelling it is also never clear who says what or when a different person starts talking
I hate it so much (and I'm at least able to notice when they are wrong since I'm not deaf and can understand the audio in most cases. It must be worse for others) -
Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.
@Gargron It's hard to put the brakes on advances, like the Ghost Shirt Society finds out at the end of Vonnegut's Player Piano.
I heard an interview with a professor yesterday who wrote a book on the benefits of keeping cash alive and not relying completely on digital payment systems. He suggested using cash at least once a week. Maybe people will be able to do that with AI - limit their use and rely on their own brains at least some of the time. https://blogs.bu.edu/zagorsky/
-
Machine translations are often brought up as a gotcha whenever I criticize LLMs. It's worth pointing out two things: Machine translations existed decades before LLMs, and yes, machine translations are useful. However: I would never in my life read a machine translated book. Understanding what a social media post is talking about in rough terms? Sure. Literature? Absolutely not. Hell, have you ever seen machine translated subtitles? It's absolute garbage.
@Gargron This was even true in the 1600s, when the Companies of (human) Translators were translating the Bible into English (the so-called "King James" version, 1611).
Translations of human language require the ability to translate the _sense_ of some local or regional usage into something similar in the target language.
They include a footnote indicating that one passage was essentially untranslatable, because the phrase was not understood by anyone. So they used context instead.
