Comment on Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'

• iopq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Google translate is horrendously bad at Korean, especially with slang and accidental typos. Like nonsense bad.

  source

  • kazerniel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Same in Hungarian, machine translation still often gives hilariously bad results. It’s especially prone to mixing up formal and informal ‘you’ within the same paragraph, something which humans never do. At least it’s easy to tell when a website is one of those ‘auto-translated to 30 languages’ content mill.

    source
• lunarul@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  As long as you can verify it is an accurate translation

  Unless the process has changed in the last decade, article translations are a multi-step process, which includes translators and proof-readers. It’s easier to get volunteer proof-readers than volunteer translators. Adding AI for the translation step, but keeping the proof-reading step should be a great help.

  But you could probably also have used Google translate and then just fine tune the output yourself. Anyone could have done that at any point in the last 10 years.

  Have you ever used Google translate? Putting an entire Wikipedia article through it and then “fine tuning” it would be more work than translating it from scratch. Absolutely no comparison between Google translate and AI translations.

  source

  • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Putting an entire Wikipedia article through it and then “fine tuning” it would be more work than translating it from scratch.

    That depends on if you are capable of translating the language if you don’t know the language then the translator will give you a good start.

    source

    • lunarul@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      If you don’t know the language at all then you shouldn’t be involved in the translation at all… The current process requires both the translators and the proof-readers to know the language.

      source