Slashdot Mirror
Kurzweil: Human-Level Machine Translation By 2029
An anonymous reader writes "In a video interview with the Huffington Post, noted futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts that machines will reach human levels of translation quality by the year 2029. However, he was quick to highlight that even major technological advances in translation do not replace the need for language learning. 'Even the best translators can't fully translate literature,' he pointed out. 'Some things just can't be expressed in another language.'"
You know, I'm a big sucker for futurism as anybody, but Ray Kurzweil makes a lot of predictions about future tech every couple of years, most of which never pan out anywhere near what he predicted. And each time Kurzweil makes a prediction, many of which are just way too optimistic or just play goofy in retrospect, the tech-minded people like slashdot lap it up.
Can't tech futurists find a better spokesman than Ray Kurzweil?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
"wtf?!? stuf! lol cul8r"
"What did my son say?"
"Sir, he inquires if things are quite as they seem. He wishes to seek tranquility, though is in good humour and will be pleased to visit again with you anon."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Just like the Rapture dude, having a specific date makes it more credible. Kurzweil is nothing if not a master manipulator of credibility...
Yeah Google translate isn't THAT good at this stage. Here's what it did to your post. My favourite mistranslation: was in Russian. "I did a lot of work with translators and even they get it wrong, so I think Kurzweil is actually a way" can be taken to mean the opposite of "so I think Kurzweil is actually off in a way." which is very misleading. I'd use it cautiously for casual conversation even now, knowing there will be misunderstanding. But I wouldn't dare dream of reliability for anything critical in a decade. It would only need to tranlsate "Well we don't want war" to "We want war" once to kill millions.
Here is your post, translated English -> French -> English
Yeah, but for years, machine translation was blocked on Alta Vista babelfish gloomy ... which was essentially a one to one translation of the dictionary (often without the help of the definition of right) to hilariously bad translations.
A couple of years, Google translate gave a big bump in the whole concept of using United Nations documents (which are usually 5 + languagels) as a faithful translation. It has many failures, but translations of Babel Babble past often unreadable for something that often range from decent translation of something that you can see if you put some thought into it.
I did a lot of work with translators and even they make mistakes, so I think Kurzweil is really a way out. IMO, by the end of this decade, machine translation will often be good enough (really, Google Translate should start looking for context clues and I do not think it will be 19 years away) but n 'there will ever be perfect because the language is not perfect. Watch humans communicate sometimes, it's not a strict protocol, misunderstandings can occur any time between people. But when a machine is wrong, people will point to it as evil, instead of the very nature of language.
Here is your post, translated English -> Chinese -> English
Yes, but over the years, machine translation is boring to stay in Alta Vista's Babelfish platform ... which is basically a one to one translation dictionary (usually not the right to use the definition of) the cheerful bad translation.
A couple years ago, Google translation of a big jolt to the whole concept of using United Nations documents (which is usually 5 + languagels) as a reliable translation. It has a lot of hiccups, but the translation is often unreadable babble from Babel things, often translated from a decent range of things you can calculate, if you want to go some.
I've done a lot of work, even their translation wrong, so I think Kuziweier actually way off. Haishizuzhi, by the end of this decade, machine translation is often not good enough (really, Google translator need to start looking for more context clues, I can not believe it will be 19 years later), but there will never be perfect because language itself is not perfect. A look at human communication, it is not a strict protocol, can be misunderstanding between the people what happened. However, when a machine to get it wrong, people will point to it's bad, rather than the nature of language itself.
Here is your post, translated English -> Russian -> English
Yes, but for many years, machine translation is stuck in a dreary Babelfish Alta Vista in ... which was basically the dictionary translation 12:59 (often without proper identification) to have fun bad translations.
A couple of years ago, Google translate gave a big blow to the whole concept of United Nations documents (which are usually 5 + languagels) as a reliable translation. It has a lot of hiccups, but the translations often traveled from unreadable babble babel to what is often varied from decent translation of the fact that you can find out if you put some thought into it.
I did a lot of work with translators and even they get it wrong, so I think Kurzweil is actually a way. IMO, by the end of this decade, machine translation will often be
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This is nothing other than the usual Kurzweil white-knighting. Going down the list:
1: The author defends the "computers in jewelry and clothing" prediction by pointing to smart phones, health monitors, and hearing aids. The latter two are not reasonably computers (and they existed in only marginally less advanced forms in 1998 already). Smart phones seem like a good defense here, but there is a fundamental problem. We can either say that smart phones are not clothing/jewelry (and therefore ineligible as defense of the prediction), or we can accept that they are -- but then why do the PDAs of 1998 not similarly qualify? The author is unable to produce a single example defending this that was not in some sense extant in 1998. Either the prediction has not been defended (because phones/PDAs are not clothing/jewelry), or it has been defended but is meaningless (because PDAs already existed in 1998 when the prediction was made).
2: The author doesn't even attempt to defend the actual ridiculous part of the claim -- that speech-to-text would account for the majority of text created.
3: The technology to project an image onto the eyes existed in 1998. Kurzweil once again managed the incredible feat of predicting the existence of something which already existed.
4: I don't know enough about chip fabrication to confirm or deny the author's argument. I'll accept it as probably true and say that this is one he got right.
5: Kurzweil predicted telephones capable of translation, and the author supports it by pointing to translation apps for smart phones. To anyone in 1998, the prediction meant a phone that could translate speech to another language -- that was the context in which phones were understood to function. They still do not do this (unless there are some new apps I'm unaware of). You could argue that Kurzweil is technically correct here, but I would say that (a) he is correct not through any foresight or wisdom, but because a wildly different application than what Kurzweil imagined came about and (b) that what we have is only an incremental update on the technologies of 1998 (eg electronic dictionaries) rather than the transformative capabilities Kurzweil predicted.
6: Kurzweil predicted drones would dominate combat, they don't. Author conveniently ignores this.
7: No need for me to comment, since even the author can't muster a defense for this embarrassment.
In short, what we see here is nothing different than what we normally see from Kurzweil-defenders (and Dead Sea Scrolls-defenders, and Psychic Hotline-defenders, &c). Six of the seven predictions are only accurate if you reinterpret the predictions to match reality (or worse, reinterpret reality to match the predictions), which frequently involves either neutering the interesting aspect of the prediction or making the prediction so vague as to be meaningless.
Kurzweil's ridiculous futurism is nothing but a religion for people who not uncommonly pat themselves on the back for being "too rational for religion."