"I hate AI translators...." Topic

especially when used in books.
I understand that using AI translators is likely much cheaper, but Great Gobs of Geronimo Gravy it weakens your product!
I recently came across a book on a somewhat obscure area of the Winter War that interests me: THE LOST RUSSIAN SKI BRIGADE: A hard fate in the Finnish Winter War, by Väinö Mononen. It is the story of an "Elite" Russian ski brigade than was annihilated by standard Finnish troops near the Kuhmo sector. Originally written in Finnish, it is only available in English in Kindle type format.
I understand Finnish is a quite difficult language to master (unless you are J.R.R. Tolkien). I am not Finnish myself, but did study it and live there for a bit in the early 80s, so I have some familiarity with the language. The reason I bring this up, is because of the weak translation (presumably by AI) it is a difficult read and almost requires some level of knowledge of Finnish to comprehend sometimes.
Here are two examples:
"Korppi" means raven; "Korpi" means wilderness. Guess which one they really meant in this sentence:
Because the raven land between Suomassalmi and Kuhmo was vast and uninhabited…
Here is another:
"Kangas" can mean fabric or canvas. It also can mean a "sandy hill" or "boreal forests being easily passable." Guess which one they meant in these two quotes:
Along the fabric coming from the front left….
During the battle Captain Murole had also arrived on the terrain of the canvas…

I get that you are trying to cut costs and that it is a book on an obscure subject – but Gadzooks hire a live person to review it!

I know what you mean, mate. But, as a previous discussion on editors and proof reading indicated, the publishing houses seem to believe it's a waste of money to employ proof readers and editors. Especially when translators, spell checkers and grammar checkers do such a fine job, for just the cost of the application/s.

Sew its awl gud, mait.

Hmm… And yet, if it weren't for artificial intelligence, you wouldn't be able to read this book at all without learning Finnish ))) It's better to have a bad translation than no translation at all.

Cuprum2
That would be looking at the bright side

Ohjustwait until they decide to get rid of the authors as well and have AI do all the writing… ;-)

Well, if AI will be able to produce fascinating texts and not be secondary – then why not. Although, I think that in the foreseeable future AI is only capable of becoming a great compiler, but nothing more. Always secondary. Just a tool…

I hate AI. On ebay I have noticed that there is a difference between AI descriptions and human descriptions. One is useful and gives a good summary of the product, the other sounds like someone trying to sell ice to Eskimos.
Humans over AI for me.

Unfortunately, there is a danger that people will become less demanding over time. Not many are interested in real paintings, for most people bad reproductions are enough)))

It might just be a dreadful translation, my copies of both Stormof Steel and The Forgotten Soldier have got some hilarious mistranslations. German isnt exactly an unusual language, but if they translater doesn't understand eg military terminology, they get it wrong.

Lack of proofreading doesn't help, but publishing is a struggling industry. How much do you want u actually want to do pay for very limited interest books?

Books are cheap when they have large print runs. And more and more people are now looking for information not in print, but on the Internet. So the traditional publishing business, in my opinion, is dying. And it will disappear with those last "dinosaurs" who still value and prefer printed books. Although, I think, if necessary, printing a paper copy for yourself on a printer is no longer a problem. I think the future lies in the sale of e-books by the authors themselves. In what form – that's the question. In my opinion – something like an electronic library, where for a symbolic fee you can read any book you are interested in.

No Cuprum, a bad translation is worse than useless, it is misleading by pretending to be accurate.

AI always HAS to be a secondary source, that is how it works. Usually it isn't even that close to original data as it uses sources with minimal checking of validity or veracity. It relies more on quantity of data, not quality.

Most so called AI is just a revamping or rebadging of what has been around for a while but can now be done faster and with a larger resource pool to draw on. This makes it a potentially useful tool in some areas but historical studies that involve comparative methodologies still require a significant human input.

I hate all things AI.

Don't tell me how it will benefit my life…

Tell me how it will be used against me…

Because we all know it will be…

Dave

GildasFacit, yes, but an unscrupulous human author does the same, and much more effectively. Humans by nature are often not objective. But at the same time, they have limited capabilities for searching and processing information. A symbiosis of machine and human will work best. That's why I wrote above – AI is always secondary. "Big calculator". But it will radically change people's lives in the very near future.

PzGeneral, this is truly frightening. I'm afraid we are not yet able to fully imagine what changes await us.

It is discussions like this about terrifying societal changes that make me less sad to be old.

Let's see:
1) Actual proof-reading is clearly regarded by publishers as an unnecessary expense. Unwillingness to pay for a bilingual to check the machine translation is just part of this overall trend.

2) They will, however, pony up for editors and "sensitivity teams" to make sure the book aligns with the publisher's politics, and see no reason to indicate in reprints that they've rewritten the book.

3) If you want a real horror story, look for an edition which was scanned in from a pre-digital text with the use of an OCR program, and then not proofread.

4) We may not notice the difference when AI authors arrive. Some years ago a Western writer sold the same novel to two different Western series, changing little more than the name of the lead character. I've heard reports of similar things at Harlequin, and what was the title of that spy novel put together from parts a few years ago, and pulped when the publisher figured this out? Grab a few recent "cozy" mysteries, thrillers, Regencies and "hard-boiled" detective novels. Victorian detective (female lead) is my nominee for the most homogenous. I suspect you could program the AI to produce MORE variation than we're presently getting, and "mainstream" fiction--the sort of thing which gets the prestigious awards--seems even more bland and uniform. Perhaps instead of sabotaging the computer, someone could destroy the writing workshops?

5) Truth is, I have hope for AI fiction--not as an autonomous author, but as a tool for authors to increase their productivity, just as 3D printers are enabling "home casters" to produce unique figures by altering parts and using them in new combinations. Your multiplex is filled with wannabe "blackbusters" and the local bookstore is filled with wannabe "bestsellers." There's no room for the niche taste. But if we can make authors more productive, we can have bespoke fiction. I'd rather pay $100 USD for a good pastiche Leigh Brackett or Avram Davidson novella than take home the 18th Dune novel, the 51st Star Wars book, or--how many Heinleins have been stamped out since R.A.H. died?

Times change. Tech won't be rescinded. That doesn't mean things have gotten or will get steadily worse.

Cuprum

Humans have provided all the data and the base rules that the AI programs use to generate their output. It is far more likely that the unscrupulous will modify the AI rules as they can then be used afterwards with minimal effort.

AI is a human based tool. Humans are nasty pieces of work. Give them big, powerful machines like social media and '1984' will look like the Beano by comparison.

I think the future lies in the sale of e-books by the authors themselves. In what form – that's the question.

I agree that is probably the way things are going. However, the publishing houses won't entirely disappear. Advertising the book, turning a potentially good author into a good author, proof reading and editing are still going to be necessary, at least in the short to medium time frame. Especially for non-fiction works.

Here's a question, Cuprum. If AI and automation manage to remove the need for 80%+ of workers, who is going to be able to afford to buy the products that the CEO's and board members depend upon for their huge salaries and lifestyles? Will they be forced try to make a "decent" profit, somehow, from each other?

"It's better to have a bad translation than no translation at all."

No, it really, really isn't.

Dal, we've been inventing things which permit us to use fewer workers to do the same work since the Neolithic Age. I don't know about you, but I don't want to go back.

There's an old story about a union leader and a contractor looking at an early steam shovel. The union leader sighed and said "that thing's taking the place of a hundred men with shovels." The contractor said "or a thousand men with teaspoons."

We don't need less tech: we need better products, either by improving the tech or improving the procedures.

GildasFacit, we don't know any other intelligence besides human (at least as effective)))) So it's hard for us to compare.

Dal Gavan, advertising and reworking books? I think a public organization, something like the "Union of Authors", can handle this…

Here we are entering a dangerous area from the point of view of politics, humanism and all sorts of conspiracy theories.

The task is simple – 80% of people (consumers) become useless consumers of always limited resources… And for the remaining 20% ​​(creators) money and profit will become a rather conditional value. Will you throw money at consumers from helicopters or load them with meaningless work? What's next?

Just thinking out loud:
- "Communism". Each of the few (relatively) living can get everything he wants, simply at will at any time. But not as property, but for use. At the same time, he must be an effective "creator" of various benefits for the new society, otherwise he will turn into a parasite and a burden. But what to do with the "unsuccessful specimens"? The problem here is how to turn the animal in man into the divine? The task of the "God" level)))
- "New feudalism" or "Exclusive capitalism". The division of people into rigid castes. Morlocks and Aeolians, "Long-lived" and "Short-lived" and so on. Paradise behind a high fence for the chosen ones, a primitive existence of savages behind a security perimeter for the rest … And a gradual reduction in the number of these savages with the help of epidemics, wars organized among them, propaganda of various social and social deviations, hunger and other mechanisms.
- "External expansion". Colonization of extraterrestrial space. So far the least realistic, but the most promising, in my opinion, direction.
I'm not claiming anything – just thinking out loud…

My left sock, you have the right to your opinion. But, having many years of experience in reading machine translation, I have gained access to information that was previously inaccessible to me. It just helps me immediately get an idea of ​​the general meaning of the text, and I can analyze it in detail when I understand its value to me. A very necessary and useful function.

robert piepenbrink, that's true, but since the advent of the excavator there have been many more people and many fewer resources. That's a problem.

We don't need less tech:

Where did I advocate that, Robert? I'm not a Luddite, I was a technician and was never happier than when I could fault-find, disassemble, repair, and reassemble a bit of kit. Heavy level maintenance on the azimuth and elevation drives on the Parakeet STA (mobile satcom terminal, now out of service- like me) was a favourite, but splicing FO cable was just frustrating.

However, not all "new" tech is useful- ie safe to use and maintain, fit for purpose, and provides an advantage over previous equipment or procedures. New technology for its own sake ("I-phone Syndrome") is often a WOFTAM cul de sac, while tech developed simply to increase profit- by reducing the required work force- is a grey area. It's good for some, not for others.

Cuprum touches on my point. The world's population is growing quickly. Resources are finite. If the current trend towards automation and AI-driven processes continues, and population growth isn't retarded, then it's probable that unemployment will rise, possibly exceeding the depression levels. So fewer employed means reduced taxation incomes but higher welfare commitments (for those countries that have welfare systems) for governments, with the concomitant restraints on their spending and effect on the economy. It also means less individuals' spending, particularly discretionary spending.

…advertising and reworking books? I think a public organization, something like the "Union of Authors", can handle this…

Possibly, mate. Author' and artists' communities have been tried before, but few had any real longevity. Some of those who have the skills/experience to be editors and proof readers are likely to try to profit from those skills. As for where all this is heading and what a solution or outcome may be- I can only guess. I'm hoping I'm overly pessimistic, but then I'm not going to be around to watch, nor feel the consequences of whatever does happen.

Dal, if you don't want to be mistaken for a Luddite, don't use their arguments--or Paul Ehrich's, come to that.

Population. My year was peak Baby Boom. Every school I attended through grad school, mine was the largest class. But they were laying off faculty right behind me. Every nation in the world except for Afghanistan and parts of sub-Saharan Africa now has a total fertility rate below replacement rate, and it's continuing to drop. Population grows--in the places where it still does--because we're living longer. Once that meant more babies living to make more babies, and the total fertility rate for replacment continued to fall. But it CAN'T fall below 2.0, and for more than a generation now, the population growth driver has been more retired adults continuing to live and collect pensions. I don't think we can keep that up, either. People still die in distressing numbers between 100 and 120.

Anyway, the Continental US has a population maybe eight times what it was in Lincoln's day, and Europe I think four or five times the population of Louis XIV's time. Resources? Unemployment? When's the last time someone came to your door looking for something he could do for money? Try to hire a kid to mow your grass, shovel your walk or paint your castings. They're all out doing jobs which didn't exist in the horse & musket period.

Yes, some of the current tech is dreadful. Edison's moving pictures were never going to replace live theater, either--except they kept improving. We need better tech, but I already said that.

And yes, some of it's fashion. It usually is. Can you say "tulip bulb craze?" How about "South Seas bubble?" I expect some day cryptocurrencies will be added to the list. And some doesn't last--CB radios, laserdiscs.

But the reason you're not out every morning weeding a wheatfield for your bread, or harvesting with a hand sickle is that we've spent thousands of years "reducing the required work force" and I for one am profoundly grateful.

Back to the OP. We're not getting proofreading for the same reason we're mostly not getting decent binding. That's because not enough of the customer base cares to make it worth the publisher's money. There's a price to be paid for living among the yahoos, and it's not all dreadful music over the PA system.

Just to follow up on Robert's population statement here is a 2024 article about the replacement rate and declining population. I just heard another story on population decline as well. Quite the opposite from the Sci Fi tropes of population explosion – Soylent Green anyone.

<url> link </url>

DeRuyter, thanks for that link. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about population growth.

Dal, if you don't want to be mistaken for a Luddite, don't use their arguments--or Paul Ehrich's, come to that.

I'm not fond of being lectured by condescending know-it-alls, Robert. This discussion has been turned into a lecture- so massage your ego and pretend you won something, sunshine, but I'm not wasting any more time. The field is yours.

Clearly I owe Dal an apology--and anyone else who feels I was a condescending know it all. I hope he comes back long enough to read it.

I really do try not to, but I was 14 when Harry Harrison's "Make Room! Make Room!" came out, 16 when "The Population Bomb" was published and 21 for the release of "Soylent Green"--and the birth rate had been declining since the year I was born. so I go into lecture mode on the subject without sufficient provocation. I'll try not to in the future.

Apology accepted, Robert. My apologies to you for chucking a tanty, for no good reason. It's not the sort of post I expect from you, and if my brain wasn't in neutral I'd have realised that.

Anyway, back to wargaming, which is why we're here. I dragged my Wings of War/Glory stuff out of storage, and me mate and I will be playing next Tuesday. His first taste of an air mini's game. More importantly there's no dice to betray me, unlike our ACW game. F< SNIP >rd dice!

"My left sock, you have the right to your opinion. But, having many years of experience in reading machine translation, I have gained access to information that was previously inaccessible to me. It just helps me immediately get an idea of ​​the general meaning of the text, and I can analyze it in detail when I understand its value to me. A very necessary and useful function."

Good for you that you have the time and inclination to do that, most don't and will take it at face value so therefore my point still stands.

Yes, it's an opinion, so is yours and everyone else's here. They vary, rightly or wrongly.

"Not many are interested in real paintings, for most people bad reproductions are enough"

I'd like to see evidence for that

If a person finds time for a hobby, he will also find time to obtain the information he needs…

"I'd like to see evidence for that"

I don't have any official statistics, but I am ready to claim that with a random sample of 100 houses of people from different walks of life, we will find many more cheap reproductions as home decoration than originals)))
Although, of course, it may be that I am wrong ;)

" If a person finds time for a hobby, he will also find time to obtain the information he needs…"

I'd like to see evidence for that.

Cuprum2, I take your point that one may be out of synch with popular taste, and there are penalties for not having a hundred million consumers wanting the same thing. But I think your "evidence" is poorly chosen. The Amsterdam Museum won't sell me the original of The Night Watch, after all. So the rest of us have to struggle by on reproductions, which you describe variously as "cheap" and "bad." Is there no such thing as a decent-quality reproduction? Are all reproductions inferior to the worst original painting?

As for "enough," I have the game room I can afford, not the one I can imagine. Are things different for you?

I too hate AI. Even down to the simple auto-correct on spelling or words. They even get corrections wrong.

Perhaps I have chosen an unfortunate comparison, but I suggest returning to the context of the question. So, in my opinion, there is a danger that under the influence of the overwhelming amount of bad, but cheap, texts created by artificial intelligence, people will stop being picky and stop appreciating good texts created by people. Let me clarify that this statement is about text as a product that must be sold with maximum profit…

Understood. I was probably a little testy, surrounded as I am by what I think of as perfectly nice prints.

But it's worth keeping in mind that you don't need a majority of the population to share your perspective--only enough people to be worth catering to commercially. I've got six human, non-mechanical translations of The Master and Margarita on my shelves (seven if you count the revision) and it's not because Bulgakov rivals Tolkien or Rowling in the English-speaking world, but because there are enough people who care. Same thing with some really nicely bound volumes of Lovecraft criticism. Closer to home, consider the relative popularity of 28mm fantasy and 6mm historical miniatures. But there are still enough 6mm (and 2mm) fans to keep lines in production.

It's commercial viability which is critical, not relative popularity.

I'm stunned that nobody has cursed AI narrators, who can't even pronounce words correctly.

Not worth our time, OFM. "Never try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

After all, I can read the words off the screen, so there's no lost information. And as annoyances go, it's nothing next to the VA phone switching system.