"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"(correresmidestino.com) |
"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"(correresmidestino.com) |
Translation is a gigantic boon for business, but just as important for human connection, for culture, science, art, and entertainment. The value of automatic and cheap translation between all languages, this tower of Babylon, is immeasurable.
Human translators will always be better than any AI at their job. But they don't have unlimited time and energy, and they aren't cheap. AI makes good to great translations available to everybody.
Specifically: LLMs make it really easy to misunderestimate the complexity of fields other than your own. (You can see this with a lot of vibecoded projects, for example – once they hit the wall of complexity, they stall out or start finding ugly patches for fundamental design issues, etc.)
I don't think this sort of cultural change will happen short-term, though.
In my experience this is a real problem. Just yesterday I asked my LLM to create a piece of software that could help me build an 'ambilight-like experience' through my home assistant. It did something that seems to work as I expected, but there is a lot of theory that I just brushed past. It would be pretty easy for me to assume that I would be able to replicate this feature from scratch 'now that I understand the problem'.
I still love the tool, but remain as convinced as ever that AGI does not lie at the end of this particular path.
Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.
Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false.
Lemma: contemporary implementations have already improved; they're just unevenly distributed.
Maybe AGI is possible and we'll have software defined human intelligence that's completely autonomous but that's not coming in the next slightly better RL trained LLM and if existed likely wouldn't be under our control anyway
This person is in the first stage of grief (denial); artists are several stages ahead. Most customers are not going to care about the difference in translation quality unless it's in a regulated sector.
> Ah, you can’t fire me, I’m self-employed!
I don't understand thinking like this. I think companies can certainly fire their contractors.
The other person in the gym was right, did you you just dump it in the latest model?
There is already a tipping point now in software engineering where we prefer to ask AI instead of humans because we believe accuracy will be better, see SO death as an example or just see the current state of online dev communities, it's getting deserted and between team members at work, we can also notice that people speak less and less.
Sad but I believe it.
Just because you don't want to use AI/LLM to translate, that won't stop someone else who will, and they will end up doing it cheaper and faster (maybe not better, but most people don't really care about quality too much anymore.)
This plague of misanthropic doom is itself pretty depressing. Why do so many people think LLMs are in any way on a path to compete with human brains? Why do you think so little of yourself? The brain is magnificent and complex in ways that we are unable to decipher anytime soon, and it does way more than an LLM. Way, way more.
When I say we, I mean the general population really. There0-'ll always be the super bright ones, sure, but we gotta be realistic here. Most people already struggle to make any meaningful contribution because it's so hard to compete, and that gap is just gonna get bigger and bigger.
I agree the brain is pretty magnificent, but when it comes to stuff like language, figuring out if an idea actually works, building the next LLM, or running business stuff, it's pretty obvious we'll be inferior. AI can already innovate and come up with new things way faster than any human could, so at some point (soon) => the majority of contributions are just gonna come from AI, not from us.
We would all do well to remember that and remember that each and every advancement and use case regarding AI is the result of choices by people (or the groups of people we call corporations) and are oftentimes motivated by the profit motive, not the best interest of humanity.
We could make different choices up to and including our own Butlerian Jihad where we ban all forms of AI but we could also do everything we can to prevent the worst fallout short of that.
There are only two types of problems in the universe: 1) those posed by the laws of physics 2) those posed by human choices
The problem of AI is one of the latter.
We are talking about "codebases" but realistically we won't even be checking the filetree of them soon, it will be all blind, containerized and verified with pseudo guarantees which are good enough to build serious things. We don't even write documentation for humans anymore, we need to look at the trends and the reality within companies, most developers became "callcenter agents" in a matter of only 2 years and literally most of them are not even using proper automated tooling yet as we can see the "vibe coding" trend with Claude Code which is weak, by far most work done daily by developers is already automatable entirely, but with exceptions, sure, but in a few years those exceptions will become rare.
There will be niche problems about legacy products, sure, but legacy products will all be replaced over time, if we think in depth, why do we even need that many languages, that many tools? Tomorrow AI will write 99% if not all code existing ("code" doesn't even matter anyway), so it's much better if it's specific to AI and not playing this dance where we think we are doing a meaningful human contribution on an "AI-made codebase".
For context, I have 2 decades of software dev behind me.
That's nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that AI (with the current techniques) will ever become reliable enough to let it do its own thing, let alone better than a human. It's been years of development and you still can't trust it to get basic facts correct, not even "well it's better than it used to be". Saying it'll replace humans in 5-10 years is a fantasy (or a prediction that people are stupid enough to fall for hype, I guess).
There's the rub: AI is not an oracle. It's neither designed nor intended to provide accurate recall of all facts. It's closer to a reasoning engine than anything IMO.
Oh, and for the record: I don't trust people to get basic facts correct, either. It's already far better than the average human at trivia.
It's not a fantasy, I would bet that no serious engineer nowadays is putting in prod a codebase not AI reviewed meaning we already can't work on our own, we must factor in the on-going decline of human capabilities (at least developers) as well of course.
I'm not really saying this because of any sort of hype, but I can personally relate where I went from actually coding to NEVER CODE in less than 2 years, and everyone around me is the same thing, what it will be in 5 years?
Knowing that really, most developers aren't even using proper tooling yet so they are very slow compared to what they could be, I mean how many people we hear saying they can't even saturate an Anthropic Max 20 subscription? I saturated 7 accounts the last 2h alone, it's because they haven't entirely rethought their workflows yet, why do they even have "downtimes", it should be 24/7.
GP is is over the top ins saying humans will "be inferior soon" but AI can be a nice additional check so AI review might be come standard.
For personal projects that I don't plan to share widely, I'm making it a point to not look at the code at all. So far - and to my surprise - I've not only found that this has result in no more bugs than before, but it seems to result in fewer bugs over time. Every time I find a bug or a regression, I add it to the specification. My SDLC requires that every specification have at least one associated test. Not every function, or every line, or anything like that - every specified feature. The end result has been that my projects have matured over time much faster than if I'd been more closely involved.
I've already toyed with writing some projects in Nim and Haskell for token efficiency. At some point I plan to put together a simple test project, then do a comparison of token efficiency with every language I can think of to find the one that I'm able to generate most quickly, correctly, and cheaply.
1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.
2. AI is a terrible replacement for me - my skills are at such a high level that it’s almost theoretical that it’ll ever be good enough to replace me for 90% of what I get paid to do. It’s a tool at best.
This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it.
There is an interesting third group emerging: People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output.
This takes the form of people who spin up a lot of "agents" and give them personalities like security director or quality director (which are unnecessarily complex and maddeningly unpredictable ways to trigger an LLM session for doing a security review or a quality check pass).
It also includes the person who knows that their app is full of bugs, but thinks it's not a problem because they can have the AI fix the bugs as they show up. People in this class haven't encountered security breaches or data loss bugs yet. They think it's all about having Claude fix that div that isn't centered or handle that error code that shows up some times.
Are you averaging like 2000+ comments a month?
I'm not sure how to formulate it yet but it seems there is some Peter Principle/Gell-Mann Effect corollary that is AI-related we can say here.
Perhaps: "AI rises to the level of its users' incompetence."
Or: "Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it"
I like this / generally agree. The only wrinkle is that - for some tasks - the verification _is_ "run the script, see if it worked, don't care how... just that it did" which is distinctly different from "not only did it do it correctly, it did so in the most direct and performant way possible".
For a _lot_ of what I use LLMs to build, the former is all I need.
Its like basic income, everyone will stop working except from you.
Each time the frontier models get better, I see another wave of AI doubters suddenly become believers. People say things like, "AI couldn't code last year, but now I use it for everything!" Interesting. Now we know how that the person who said this has the coding skills of a Claude Opus 4.5 or whenever the frontier was when they flipped.
Meanwhile, the rest of us keep using AI as simple tools, like the person in the article. I wonder how long it will take before computers can program better than me, and I flip too.
It's not about just skill. It's a matter of skill, time, and how critical the software you are writing is. There is a lot of software that is not critical. That is not close to security mechanisms. And that even if the code quality is not the highest, it does not matter.
Even if you are the best coder in the world, you would already become more productive by using ai. Things that in the past you might have not coded yourself but delegated to an intern, or things that you wouldn't even delegate to an intern because they are just too boring to do like some refactorings.
Like I had this project at work that was written without typescript strict mode turned on. When I turned it on, it had over 700 errors. I might be better than AI to fix every single of one these errors. But my time is worth more than that in doing other things. But I can, and did, ask AI to fix every single one. And then I reviewed it batches, and something that my team wanted to do for multiple years and nobody had the time for, finally got done.
There are large portions of my codebases that are essentially extremely verbose grunt work. My UI stack, IaC YAML, thin CRUD routes, etc.
I know what the code is supposed to look like when it’s done being written, but it’s going to take me for freaking ever to type it all out.
I can just few shot it now in an hour. Plan -> feedback loop -> build -> review loop.
Does it try to do weird stuff? Yeah. And then I’m just like “that’s weird, no, the components should be broken up like XYZ” and then it’s not weird anymore. Occasionally (1% of the time) I just do a quick refactor myself instead of trying to tell the agent harness what to do.
I can get something fairly close to the ballpark of what I would have done but in like single digit percentage of the time.
And the result is that I can spit out a bunch of purpose built tools (personal tools, internal tools for teams, etc.) that I never would have been able to justify building otherwise.
AI produces output that is very convincing to a non-expert, and (dangerously), it's so good at looking like an expert, they might believe that it is an expert. But the moment you ask someone to use it for something they're an expert in themselves, the holes appear wide, consistent & obvious.
My favourite moment of seeing this in action was watching AI-worrier TV host/comedian Bill Maher. He has spent years talking about the dangers of AI taking everyone's jobs, destroying civilisation, ruining the economy, starting wars, "it's just getting better and better all the time", and so on. But one night he let slip a tell. "It's no good at writing jokes. Not yet, anyway". There you go, Bill... connect those dots...
There is real utility in it being a tool to help experts apply their expertise, as in this story where it speeds up some tasks to help the translator do part of the work, enhance their expertise, allow them to be more productive.
It's a better screwdriver, a better hammer, in the hands of somebody who knows what needs a screwdriver or a hammer. It doesn't replace them. It can't replace them. It's a tool that enhances the human, not an alternative.
I don't understand why this is not widely understood yet, but I'm sure it will in due course.
And I don't expect this to change. Even if the latest model scores 100% on every benchmark, all that really tells us is that it's now more productive/efficient than it was before at helping experts do that work, not that it can replace everyone in that category of work.
Most? Perhaps it's depression, but I look back at my career and wonder if any code I've ever been paid to write is beyond what current AI can do.
Sure, this leaves me with the non-coding tasks of UX taste, and code review + a few other forms of QA (and, when self-employed, project management, game design, etc.), but man, I'm someone who actually learned to read in part on the Commodore 64 user manual (as in, trying to understand what PEAK and POKE meant concurrent with having "Jack and Jill go up the hill" picture books).
(And no, I'm not claiming LLMs make bug-free code, I see the bugs LLMs make during my code review of their output and some of them are awful, hence "this leaves me with …").
Every month a new guy discovers LLMs; discovers a skill the current LLMs require to get good results; and writes about the future jobs that will always be available for smart people like HIM, that are SKILLED in using LLMs.
The next generation of AIs doesn't need his fancy prompt. The image model goes from needing to type in just the right set of weird words and cryptic sorcerous invocations, to most people being able to type in English what they want and get a pretty good result.
There are still tasks that require careful invocation. But they are a much smaller fraction of all the tasks people are trying to do, or you can get a bleh result without the elaborate invocation to get it really good. And to improve on the bleh result you need to be substantially more of an expert than back when the Guy was memorizing a rule about adding "trending on Artstation" to the image prompts, as would always require a human paid to do that.
Another generation of AIs comes out. The next generation of Clever Skills is obsolete. Image models just obey the instructions for compositing panels without mixing them up, and you don't need to be an expert to get them to do it right. Another human value-add is gone. A wider set of tasks require no human expert.
Now a new Guy notices LLMs have become useful in his field for the first time. He discovers they require SKILL to use CORRECTLY. He posts about how there will always be jobs for humans who are SKILLED in using LLMs like HIM.
But it is not an infinite cycle. It is not the same each time it repeats. Now the Guy is a highly paid programmer or a career mathematician in 2026, instead of a graphic artist in 2023.
In six months the models will no longer require his vaunted Skills.
And by then there will be another Guy.
But the process doesn't continue forever. The Guys are coming from fields that were harder and harder for AIs. The brief centaur eras are shorter and shorter.
Today it is writers who are laughing at how bad the LLMs are at their job, and who will perhaps soon be posting about how it takes Skill to get an LLM to do their job Correctly. But the models are coming faster, and the eras of kinds of human value-add in each field are shortening.
There is a point when you run out of Guys, either because the centaur eras are too short for people to develop SKILLs and post to Twitter about them; or because there are not lands left for AIs to conquer; or because ordinary people are not reassured by some Nobel laureate proclaiming there will always be jobs for Nobel laureates with the SKILLS to prompt robotized biology labs Correctly.
But we'll never run out of amateur economists who assert entirely without a brief contemporary example that there will always be jobs for humans skilled at operating AIs!
We'll run out of professional economists saying it when nobody is paid for that work anymore.
I guess we'll also run out of amateur economists when they're dead.
For example, I just read the Lawrence Ellsworth translation of The Three Musketeers, which I very thoroughly enjoyed. I don't speak or read French, but from my understanding Ellsworth's translation is considered one of the more accurate translations of the work.
Out of curiosity, I sic'd Claude Fable on the original French version of The Three Musketeers and told it to translate accurately, but also try and keep the same jovial tone as the original and do not censor anything. After it was done, I didn't read the entire output, but I did compare a few individual chapters between the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation.
They were honestly remarkably similar. As far as I could tell, nothing was substantially different from the Ellsworth translation and the Fable translation. I do think that the prose for the Ellsworth translation was a bit better, but the prose for the Fable one was actually perfectly readable. Again, I don't speak French so I cannot say for sure, but I do not believe that I would have gotten a significantly different experience had I read the Fable version instead of the Ellsworth version.
Now, it's possible (and likely) that this is somewhat self-fulfilling; Fable might have been trained using Ellsworth's translation and as such it's very directly able to crib from it; sadly since I do not speak any language outside of English, there's sort of a catch-22: the only way I can compare the accuracy of a translation is to compare against other translations, but if other translations exist then that will likely influence the results, and if a translation doesn't already exist then I have no way of auditing it.
I'm still going to continue reading through Ellsworth's translations for the subsequent stories simply because that feels more canonical, and as I said I do think the prose was a bit better.
And here I am, brain the size of a galaxy, and I fumble my way through every language I speak other than English.
Serious respect for the linguists.
Update: in case it’s not obvious, I am sorry. I could not help it.
To me they come off as faddish, with many writers using them where commas and semicolons would have done just as well. I think their popularity stems from teh fact that provide the sense of a personal aside from the writer, allowing them to be more expressive while clearly delineating the personal or contextual remark from the main flow of the prose. No doubt this works for a lot of readers, but I find it tedious.
It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural values, etc. all the things cited as stuff humans can do but AI can't, AI can currently do if given enough context. But more importantly, all those things aren't magical tasks that can only occur inside a human skull, they are a product of information processing, its just the information processing that has been hard to make computers good at, but so far it appears AI keeps getting better.
I'm all for humans having special value that is not attached to their ability to perform useful work. However denying the abilities of AI models seems to be a common mistake many people are making, and sadly reality catches up to these people before they can emotionally prepare.
I know a translator between two Eastern European languages, and some jobs require use of specialized dictionaries. Using LLMs in such cases would be very unreliable and would require even more effort to check and correct than doing it correctly in the first place. Plus, I really doubt that US tech firms are training LLMs on language spoken by "only" 6 million people.
As for entertainment, anyone who grew up in Eastern Europe with pirated movies with nasal monotone translations, or machine-translated video games knows how much those take away from the experience. Sure, "AI could do better", but could it be consistent and capture cultural nuances and idioms, etc?
Come to Montreal. Only 2H away and you can get by decently well without a car.
Even small, dumb, local models are excellent at translation already. Frontier models are on par or better than the human translations we've tested them against at work.
The sad part is that we haven't figured out how to distribute our resources fairly to these people even thought their services aren't required as often. Instead we just take their wages and give them to the top 0.1%
Just one amusing example I saw recently: On the Amazon website, a submit button labeled “Go” in English was translated to something which when translated back would be “Walking”. That’s the kind of thing that would be exceedingly unlikely to happen with a human translator.
A list of "Examples AI will silently fail at" would be a lot more interesting, and might just convince your next potential client to _not_ use AI.
Yes. Effective tools increase the supply of roofs made. More supply means lower prices per roof. But because the same number of roofs need to get worked on, the increase in roofs per roofer means less roofers will be needed.
not because their skills are no longer relevant, but because they are taking a principled stance defending now irrelevant skills.
> “Oh, I can’t! It’s really not reliable enough.”
Gell-Mann Amnesia strikes again.
AI isn’t replacing me. Like a toddler, it
needs to be constantly coached.
Humans are really bad at noticing trajectories. They see the current situation. They know what the situation was 5 years ago. But for some reason they do not believe that there is a trajectory. They view the present state as the final destination.
Three years ago, AI was barely able to provide sort-of reliable command completion.
Two years ago, it could extrapolate a single function from a docstring - but the docstring had to be so verbose that it wasn't practical to use in that way.
A year ago, I was tinkering with Devin to try to find a way to get it to reliably implement small, isolated features from verbose Jira tickets.
Six months ago, I started using AI to generate the majority of my code output. Most of my time was spent reviewing, and I was ecstatic to reach ~2x output because I could run the next task while reviewing the last.
Now, at work I'm managing a half dozen Claude Code instances, Devin sessions, and orchestrating a review loop between Claude, Devin, and CodeRabbit. It's not uncommon for me to be working on four or more discrete features at once. My output is approximately 15x my pre-AI baseline - and I've not sat down and written a line of code directly in six months.
At home I'm managing a Hermes agent that can spin up a whole fleet of purpose-tuned agents for whatever purpose I'd like. I've implemented spec-driven development a'la Acai, and extended it to the point that my agent creates specs from text or voice conversation, I review them, and it handles implementation end-to-end. The code itself is an almost disposable artifact - useful primarily to ensure no regressions have been introduced between rounds.
... I simply don't understand how you can assert that "it's been basically the same for 3 years". It absolutely has not.
But the problem is that for many people they now believe it's ok to present a 10k line vibe-coded PR that only has been verified against external behavior, and some Senior Engineer needs to review it, in time, under pressure, without too much push-back, and lastly, it's the Senior Engineer that gets paged at 2am because something has fallen over.
Also, those scripts tend to start a life of their own, and because it looks good enough, people don't look at them again.
I recall a bug of someone vibe-coding a cleanup script for folders older than $x (on Windows).
Get the CreationDate, and sort. Delete older than $x. Except CreationDate can be null and null is always smaller than $x.
Oops.
The `cp` program on my computer also has the remarkable ability to produce a faithful translation of The Three Musketeers when provided one as input.
This isn’t a great test, because Claude almost certainly has multiple translations of The Three Musketeers in its training data.
Translation is hard. If you're familiar with reading translations from specific languages MTL works have a very specific smell to them, it's a bit hard to describe but it's there. A good translation is miles (kilometers, for those outside of the US) above MTL.
That's not to say that perhaps the latest LLMs will have better translation abilities, but that they are generally crap currently. Maybe they are fine for something very short, but absolutely not for longer content.
I'm pretty sure the Ellsworth translation is in the corpus. You basically instructed claude to regurgitate it.
The llms all have the more famous books memorized. You can trick them to recite them more or less word for word.
Crucially the full translation was part of ChatGPT’s training set. Recall is a pretty solved problem in machine learning.
How well does it translate a French novel published yesterday? Where neither the original novel nor any translations are in the training set yet? Or might not even exist!
I tried asking ChatGPT to translate a letter I wrote in Slovenian this weekend. It got the general gist but missed a lot of the nuance. Completely missed several of the little touches of tone where the right choice of synonym conveys a whole bunch of information.
Of course as for the poor OP... is this a majority of what working translators are paid to do?
I suspect a lot of translation is just grunt work - technical and business documents. The lack of a cohesive voice with considered style is perhaps not really much of an issue in those. The expectations are just much lower; text that conveys the basic meaning is a much lower bar to clear.
She's probably better than a bot at that stuff, at least for now, but my concern is that it won't be "enough" better for businesses to justify her continued employment. And this is my general feeling about this stuff across society, in basically all domains.
This reminds me of the adage, that ChatGPT is really great at everything except my own work.
I suspect if I knew another language I would be able to find errors in the translation.
So i guess in the end it just matters how important the work is.
A raw "word for word" translation (which I also tried) made the story somewhat hard to follow and very dry, but just asking it to keep the same kind of jovial swashbuckling tone of the original made something pretty similar to Ellsworth's translation.
Again, before someone decides to "correct" me on this, I am aware that it's very likely that the Ellsworth translations are part of the training set so it's not directly a fair comparison.
Assuming lots of material local to the context one is wanting to translate is included, why couldn't it potentially access that additional context?
I think you’re missing a big point of translating literary works. A purely “accurate”, phrase-by-phrase translation is often not very good; the actual literary style, the feeling and the allusions and references, often get lost that way. A good translation of literary work requires a lot of deliberate choices by the translator to deviate from literal translations in ways that convey the style of the original, or an extra layer of meaning that would be lost by an “accurate” translation of a phrase. Also, being consistent with these choices matters a lot, which OP claims LLMs are less good at.
The number of lies, lies by omission, deceptive distortions, and fallacious argument tactics they generate is absurd, and increasing rapidly. Translation, when done as a service you are paid for, can't be relied on by propaganda bots.
But even the good engineers should likely be a little worried.
I have also taken to being sloppier in my prose, as I’ve had stories rejected for being “written by AI” - when they’re shorts I wrote more than a decade ago. Reworked them to sound like a moron, accepted. Sigh.
But now I find myself adding noise and imperfections to my writing (not that it was perfect) to make it more human, which is kinda silly.
It's worth noting that you can substitute "dollars" for "context" in that sentence, which seems to be where many of these impressive achievements are coming from. As ever, it's unclear whether these models will get cheaper while remaining better, since all of the recent breakthroughs appear to be of the "think more" kind. For translation specifically, I'd be very surprised if the "think more" LLMs would help given the per-unit cost expected of the output.
Reminds me of the first time I saw a coding agent stumble through an issue in 2023 maybe? and went "this is a big deal", similarly when OG gpt started making jokes that actually kinda worked.
Updated modern version of the classic "make me a greentext", apologies for slop-posting, but it seems relevant:
> be me
> senior software engineer
> in charge of making sure the tickets get, in fact, implemented
> occasionally have to open the IDE and write some code myself
> one day i open the IDE and the ticket is already closed
> the agent did it overnight
> no steering, no review notes, nothing left for me to do
> distress.jpg
> ask my manager what to do
> he says "just focus on the high-level architecture stuff"
> i say "what high-level architecture stuff"
> he says "i don't know, you're the senior engineer"
> rage.jpg
> quit my job
> become a prompt engineer, nice and simple, just tell it what to build
> first day on the job, sit down to write the prompt
> AI already wrote itAs one of such people, I think there is a nuance to it. AI is great when you’re translating something to yourself. But when translating things for others, more caution and human judgement is needed. Espesially when translating instruction manuals, where bad wording could cause someone to injure themself.
Expected Value (Upside, given time/cost savings + Downside, given %reliability).
So, every task falls under a spectrum
I can confidently say that LLMs do a better job than the average traditionally published fictions in my country, at least when the original works are in English. Every single time I watch a subbed movie there will be some lines noticeably wrong.
The most egregious example I came across recently was where a friend enthused about some manga he was reading and I agreed to read a few chapters, only to discover that the translator has decided to render the countryside accents of western Japan (engaging with a protagonist visiting from Tokyo) by having them say 'y'all' and 'bless your heart' and other Southern USA tropes. I get the aspiration of the translator, but it was excruciatingly unpleasant to read. At that point, why not just say the protagonist was from New York and on vacation in Florida, or draw in some meshback caps on some of the characters and add alligators here and there in the background?
It can be reasonably argued that some poetry can be impossible to translate from some languages to others. A poem might be explained, but by a lenghty, dissecting explanation, that completely loses the point of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3e786n/chinese_hair_...
On the other hand, a lot of people become extremely put off by the smallest sign of ai slop. And the llms have a tendency to impart their style to any text they touch.
There will never be enough expert-level human translators, and they tend to be very expensive. Machine translation has raised the floor.
I have a few periods during my daily routine where I’m waiting somewhere away from the computer and need a break from email.
A lot of my comments have double digit upvotes and some get into the mid hundreds. I try to actually read articles and provide thoughtful comments, which gets upvoted a lot more than the throwaway.
> Are you averaging like 2000+ comments a month?
52000 / 3 years would be under 1500 points per month or 48 points per day. That could be done with 1-2 helpful comments per day on popular threads.
Don't care, only time I've measured them was personal curiosity about hand-written projects, and one time I was trying to work out how many blank comments a co-worker had put into their codebase*.
How valuable are features? Management kept giving me them, and I always just assumed they'd decided which ones were important. But I've seen git histories of apps where the same feature was added twice, 5 years apart, by the same developer.
> In the same vein, when was the last time someone put an AI on a ralph loop, posted the result on r/vibecoding and ended up with actual users.
How often do the megacorps currently boasting that 80% of their code is now vibed, post anything (other than adverts) to reddit?
* 20% of the whole project, or 24 thousand blank comments.
> Correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness.
I doubt this a lot. The average AI user is running claude code as the harness, or Codex etc. prompting has no secret incantations, and steer and verify is just knowing what the answer should roughly look like, which is a domain skill, not an AI skill.
I don't see how not writing code is being offered as a moat, it seems like that is just translating business/stakeholder requirements to architecture/biz processes which is exactly the type of low hanging fruit that AI will capture first
or was it your point that the position sits closer to the stakeholders (relatively compared to those lifting) thus immune from replacement by AI
or is your argument that your taste is exquisite that no AI will be able to match it like it already has with software so far and it will not improve beyond the current state
At least that's how it was for me, maybe other peoples' careers are different.
If they're so good at banging out code now, they're coming for that too, you know.
The "planning things out" has moved to another layer, called "architects"
Would you trust living in a high rise designed by AI?
Designing a system that survives production is the job.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/uy1ot1/w...
Glad we agree :)
But yeah, I broadly do agree; if I read other languages I could find a book that hadn't been thoroughly translated to English and then I could give a proper analysis on how good the translation is, but since I'm a very stereotypical American I know exactly one language (and sometimes my comprehension of even that is questionable).
That might happen, but I don't think it's implied, at least given literally every other bit of technology that has ever happened in history ever.
I am not assuming they'll continue indefinitely, but it's a small step from writing code to planning out the code to write, and another small step from planning a coding project to planning a software project, etc.
These are all small steps, and because the act of specification + planning paid less than specification + planning + programming, what reason do you have for thinking that specification + planning is valuable enough to keep the salaries the same as specification + planning + programming?
However to me it seems completely reasonable that it would work, because my understanding of what happens is the model interprets what you said as:
Look for a group of people who are considered to be expert growth hackers by the world at large and answer my questions as though they were answering them.
So assuming that there are a set of questions that can best be answered by people that most other people identify as expert growth hackers then yes, I believe assigning a personality in this way should obviously work.
The Opus models over the last year doesn't seem as vulnerable to this type of behavior and I've noticed the "identify as expert" prompt tricks aren't as meaningful there.
people who claim to be experts in [domain] people who others claim to be experts in [domain]
hopefully valuing membership in group two over membership in group 1.
You can (could, maybe they 'fixed' it by now) get sota LLMs to reproduce entire novels near verbatim.
The idea of giving it parallel texts of those novels in different languages, to train it on translation, is so obvious it'd just be strange if the AI labs didn't do it.
In fact DeepL was doing basically that more than 10 y ago.
I still think there are better tests you could do. Ideally, you would choose a book that was published recently—after the model’s cut-off date—which is considered to be a good translation. But even something like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, which is not particularly new and by no means obscure, would be better than a famous work of literature like The Three Musketeers that has many translations.
Even if Fable didn't have Ellsworth's translation, it certainly has the William Barrow translation, which would still get it like 80+% of the way there.
My wife speaks Spanish, I should get her to do some kind of comparison with a Spanish book that doesn't have English translations.