Slashdot Mirror


Romancing The Rosetta Stone

Roland Piquepaille writes "Not only this news release from the University of Southern California has a fantastic title, it also has a great content. This story is about one of their scientists, Franz Josef Och, whose software ranks very high among translation systems. "Give me enough parallel data, and you can have a translation system for any two languages in a matter of hours," said Dr. Och, paraphrasing Archimedes. His approach relies on two concepts, gathering huge amounts of data, and applying statistical models to this data. It completely ignores grammar rules and dictionaries. "Och's method uses matched bilingual texts, the computer-encoded equivalents of the famous Rosetta Stone inscriptions. Or, rather, gigabytes and gigabytes of Rosetta Stones." Read my summary for more details."

5 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Obsolete? by Surak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Almost everyone'? What *are* you talking about? You must be an American. From a recent online Harris poll, most Americans think at least half the world speaks English. This is just plain wrong. The truth of the matter is that it's more like 20%. That's it. Most people on the NET might speak English, but most people in the world? Hardly.

  2. Old Texts by holygoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly we could consider the enormous body of work currently available in other languages.
    Having this able to be translated into English or other languages could be very valuable for scholars.

    Secondly, English is not the primary tongue for the majority of people on the planet - to suggest that because a lot of people can manage to converse in it that the ability to translate between other languages isn't valuable is foolish.

    Also note that the article specifically mentions Arabic and Chinese, which I don't think crossed your mind. China has the largest population on the planet, remember.

    Translation is far from obsolete, especially given that the majority of the Western world, and especially America, is piss poor at being bilingual.

  3. Re:DARPA by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh please... so many conspiracy theories. You do realize that the *internet* was originally developed by DARPA, right? My point: DARPA does a lot of work... not all of it revolves around spying on or otherwise taking away the rights of American citizens.

  4. Re:DARPA by wwest4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    well, not EVERY bottle of beer at the duff plant has a nose or hitler's head in it, but i'm glad the inspector is tasked to look at every single bottle.

    just because government abuse isn't guaranteed doesn't mean we shouldn't vigilantly examine the possibilities when we see them.

    it's all boils down to balancing powers of government and freedom of individuals, and this country (USA) was founded upon principles intended to favor the rights of individuals. i'll go out on a limb and make a value statement - that's the way to go. power to the people, man!

  5. Re:A poor analogy, and a poor method by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they offered me the same money (and one of those Linux NetworX clusters) I could have a superior system in a month, although (as stated above) it would require more than one known language.

    LOL! If this problem was so friggin' easy, why are these researchers the first to demonstrate a working system using this technique (which blows away all existing systems, BTW)? Hell, if it's as easy as you say, this whole "translating text" thing must be a breeze. I wonder why so much money is spent every year on R&D in this area? Hell, why didn't they just hire you to whip up a system in a month?

    Why? Because it ain't that easy and you have no idea what you're talking about. Given these are world-class researchers, I'm sure they've considered the multiple-translation route, and subsequently rejected it for very good reasons (likely far more complex than your simplistic "it's easier" excuse). Moreover, the really hard work in this area is the statistical modelling necessary to generate a working system, something which would, I suspect, be far more complex if a multiple-translation route were taken. But, hey, that's just some number crunching, right? What's so hard about that?