Artifical Intelligence Translation?

[Van]

No, your premise was not about AI as a tool, it was that AI would completely replace translators and professors.

Note JOJ does not address what I said, but addresses what he says was his understanding. Go figure.

Here is what I said:
People whose livelihood is teaching Greek, would not like to be made obsolete by an AI program that could take any Greek text and turn it into a reverse interlinear in English.
I addressed all those who derive their income dispensing their "special knowledge" which could be obtained through AI instead.
Here is the next thing I said:
Or consider software programmers, what is the need if AI could write programs at incredible speed with superior results? Just go down the list, and you will find that the "special knowledge" folks are all in jeopardy.
Does anyone see where I am addressing JOJ, or just Greek teachers or am I addressing everyone worried about technological displacement?

 

[Van]

Oh, okay. You were not addressing me, never mind that I'm the only person on the BB who is both a Greek teacher and Bible translator. Thanks for the clarification,

Yes, I know you seem to be the center of your world, but Sir, you are not the center of the translation world, as for example you did not write, not fully understand the essay you linked which said:

What’s next?
In addition to garnering funding from their university, Hermjakob and Mathew’s work has received support from a major Christian Bible translation agency. Their goal is to make the software available for free, in keeping with their Christian beliefs about the importance of spreading the word of God “to every tribe and nation.”​

How AI is helping to translate the Bible into rare languages

 

[John of Japan]

Note JOJ does not address what I said, but addresses what he says was his understanding. Go figure.

Here is what I said:
People whose livelihood is teaching Greek, would not like to be made obsolete by an AI program that could take any Greek text and turn it into a reverse interlinear in English.

And I have conclusively proven that my "livelihood" of teaching Greek, as you put it, will NOT be made obsolete by an AI program. Again, a Bible translator must be a mentor also. I have given many illustrations of how I mentor students and others. If you wish to refute me, you must prove that an AI program can mentor students. You do not do this. Therefore, you lose the debate.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I know you seem to be the center of your world, but Sir, you are not the center of the translation world, as for example you did not write, not fully understand the essay you linked which said:

​

​

Why do you have to stoop to insults? There is no need for that, and it demeans you.

 

[Van]

And I have conclusively proven that my "livelihood" of teaching Greek, as you put it, will NOT be made obsolete by an AI program. I have given many illustrations of how I mentor students. If you wish to refute me, you must prove that an AI program can mentor students. You do not do this. Therefore, you lose the debate. [next]
Why do you have to stoop to insults? There is no need for that, and it demeans you.

Totally off topic, personality centered posts
Did anyone say AI will replace missionaries, mentors, pastors, and the like? Nope.

 

[John of Japan]

Totally off topic, personality centered post.

Another insult.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm out of this thread. Let Van pontificate and insult without me.

 

[Van]

I'm out of this thread. Let Van pontificate and insult without me.

Totally off topic, personality centered posts
Did anyone say AI will replace missionaries, mentors, pastors, and the like? Nope.

Here is what I said:
People whose livelihood is teaching Greek, would not like to be made obsolete by an AI program that could take any Greek text and turn it into a reverse interlinear in English.
I addressed all those who derive their income dispensing their "special knowledge" which could be obtained through AI instead.
Here is the next thing I said:
Or consider software programmers, what is the need if AI could write programs at incredible speed with superior results? Just go down the list, and you will find that the "special knowledge" folks are all in jeopardy.
Does anyone see where I am addressing JOJ, or just Greek teachers or am I addressing everyone worried about technological displacement?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

How would software use all of our English translations to derive the most probable translation choices to provide us with an objective version of the New Testament?...

How will software “know” what the most probable translations choices should be without that information being provided it in the first place? For example, how will software “know” how much weight to give a particular translation choice without it being told, or told to assume?

Software can only be as “objective” as its programming, which is a human endeavor. Ultimately, whatever objectivity there is still lies with humans, and that will be dependent on experience and expertise. This goes for both programming and evaluation of its results.

NOTE: Any response to this that assumes there are actual or implied accusations, etc., in this response will be baseless nonsense and treated as such. Instead, responses should address the counter questions posed, or answer the OP questions quoted.

 

[Piper]

I'm out of this thread. Let Van pontificate and insult without me.

I have found that letting someone talk in an echo chamber is better than trying to talk to them when all they want to do is scream the same sentences over and over.

 

[Van]

How will software “know” what the most probable translations choices should be without that information being provided it in the first place? For example, how will software “know” how much weight to give a particular translation choice without it being told, or told to assume?

Software can only be as “objective” as its programming, which is a human endeavor. Ultimately, whatever objectivity there is still lies with humans, and that will be dependent on experience and expertise. This goes for both programming and evaluation of its results.
SNIP
.

Calculating probabilities is a data analysis performed mathematically. For example say a Greek word is usually translated as meaning one of three things. But an outlier translation goes with a meaning not consistent with any of the word's historical meanings. The probability that translation is best is low.

Yes, software is only as objective as its programing, and thus if Christians set the program's standards it might be very helpful. Of course, in the absence of the product to review, the viewpoint is conjectural.

I am just saying, do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Calculating probabilities is a data analysis performed mathematically. For example say a Greek word is usually translated as meaning one of three things. But an outlier translation goes with a meaning not consistent with any of the word's historical meanings. The probability that translation is best is low.

Yes, software is only as objective as its programing, and thus if Christians set the program's standards it might be very helpful. Of course, in the absence of the product to review, the viewpoint is conjectural.

I am just saying, do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The data is not only created by humans but also collected and pre-assessed by humans. Software must be told not only the math but how to apply the math to the data.

An outlier is determined to be so by humans, not by software. Software will treat data as an outlier only if humans tell it to do so. Software cannot “know” what is a best translation.

The point is that AI cannot displace human expertise or experience. It can, however, assist in analyzing, getting to an answer faster. The accuracy or correctness must always be assessed by experts, not assumed by the untrained.

This is not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the case of AI, the real danger is in imagining that it is a baby that could outgrow the adults.

 

[Van]

The data is not only created by humans but also collected and pre-assessed by humans. Software must be told not only the math but how to apply the math to the data.

An outlier is determined to be so by humans, not by software. Software will treat data as an outlier only if humans tell it to do so. Software cannot “know” what is a best translation.

The point is that AI cannot displace human expertise or experience. It can, however, assist in analyzing, getting to an answer faster. The accuracy or correctness must always be assessed by experts, not assumed by the untrained.

This is not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the case of AI, the real danger is in imagining that it is a baby that could outgrow the adults.

Sir, your post does not mesh with my understanding of reality. AI can replace many of the tasks currently performed by people.
Your claims concerning statistical analysis again differ from reality in my opinion. AI has potential that is unknown, and to claim it is known once again differs from reality.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Sir, your post does not mesh with my understanding of reality. AI can replace many of the tasks currently performed by people.
Your claims concerning statistical analysis again differ from reality in my opinion. AI has potential that is unknown, and to claim it is known once again differs from reality.

Yes, there seems to be real, serious disagreement here after all, but that response was quite vague. Here are some points to consider, points that are known and obvious:

1. Software will always have the limits of being inhuman, unknowing, unaware. Known.

2. Software is and will always be dependent on humans as its source, as its basis. Known.

3. The “expertise” of software is and will always be dependent on human expertise. Known.

4. Whatever evolution software undergoes is and will always be dependent on human input. Known.

5. Whatever solutions software reaches should always be evaluated by human expertise. Obvious.

One may deny those points, but obviously software did not create itself, rather humans created it, evolved it, thus its source and shaping is ultimately human no matter its current state. Whatever course software takes, ultimately it was set on that course by humans.

Software may mimic human output in some ways, in some cases, but it does not “know” what it is doing, it does not “understand” its own output. Software cannot “decide” whether its output is right or wrong. Software decision processes are determined by human input, which the software also does not “understand.”

Point five above could be ignored, but not without potentially dire consequences.

 

[Van]

Yes, there seems to be real, serious disagreement here after all, but that response was quite vague. Here are some points to consider, points that are known and obvious:

1. Software will always have the limits of being inhuman, unknowing, unaware. Known.

2. Software is and will always be dependent on humans as its source, as its basis. Known.

3. The “expertise” of software is and will always be dependent on human expertise. Known.

4. Whatever evolution software undergoes is and will always be dependent on human input. Known.

5. Whatever solutions software reaches should always be evaluated by human expertise. Obvious.

One may deny those points, but obviously software did not create itself, rather humans created it, evolved it, thus its source and shaping is ultimately human no matter its current state. Whatever course software takes, ultimately it was set on that course by humans.

Software may mimic human output in some ways, in some cases, but it does not “know” what it is doing, it does not “understand” its own output. Software cannot “decide” whether its output is right or wrong. Software decision processes are determined by human input, which the software also does not “understand.”

Point five above could be ignored, but not without potentially dire consequences.

In my opinion, your 5 points are all false.
1) The limits of AI are unknown.
2) AI is not dependent on selected input, given the ability to search a composite database beyond human comprehension.
3) Yes, the expertise of AI, its capacity to expand the knowledge of its users, is dependent upon its human programing.
4) Given that AI can write software, the claim new software will be dependent on human input is inaccurate.
5) What should be done in a perfect world is seldom done in reality.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
1. Software will always have the limits of being inhuman, unknowing, unaware. Known. ...

In my opinion, your 5 points are all false. ...
1) The limits of AI are unknown. ...

If AI is to be considered potentially human, knowing, or aware, then the disagreement is so stark that I don't see enough common ground to discuss it further.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, thus the "if." Is that really what you mean to convey in calling point one false?

 

[Van]

If AI is to be considered potentially human, knowing, or aware, then the disagreement is so stark that I don't see enough common ground to discuss it further.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, thus the "if." Is that really what you mean to convey in calling point one false?

Did anyone say AI is or will become self-aware, i.e. Number 5 is Alive? Nope

1) The limits of AI are unknown.
2) AI is not dependent on selected input, given the ability to search a composite database beyond human comprehension.
3) Yes, the expertise of AI, its capacity to expand the knowledge of its users, is dependent upon its human programing.
4) Given that AI can write software, the claim new software will be dependent on human input is inaccurate.
5) What should be done in a perfect world is seldom done in reality.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Did anyone say AI is or will become self-aware, i.e. Number 5 is Alive? Nope...

Your post specifically stated that all five points in mine are false. (Van said: “In my opinion, your 5 points are all false.”) Are you now saying that my point one is true? Or are you denying your post said it is false? Here it is again:

“1. Software will always have the limits of being inhuman, unknowing, unaware. Known.”

 

[John of Japan]

 

[Van]

Your post specifically stated that all five points in mine are false. (Van said: “In my opinion, your 5 points are all false.”) Are you now saying that my point one is true? Or are you denying your post said it is false? Here it is again:

“1. Software will always have the limits of being inhuman, unknowing, unaware. Known.”

I said and stand by what I said, "the limits of AI are unknown." See post #57. I did not claim AI would become "self-aware." And I did not claim AI would remain unaware. OTOH, your claim # 1 is obviously false.

What does "inhuman" mean? Written by AI and not by human hands? Or lacking the compassion of the milk of human kindness?

What does "unknowing" mean? Not knowing everything or not knowing anything?

What does "unaware" mean? Not being self-aware or not being responsive to inquiry?