Artifical Intelligence Translation?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

If you really don't understand a point, then ask for clarification rather than saying the point is false. But doubling down by saying, “OTOH, your claim # 1 is obviously false,” while admitting a serious lack of understanding really takes the cake.

I did not say anything about "human hands" in that point, and given the definitions of inhuman and its context in point one, etc., that is about as unreasonable an interpretation as could be imagined. Similar for unknowing and unaware.

While you “did not claim AI would remain unaware,” the fact is that it will always be unaware. It cannot be otherwise. It is merely machine software.

Associating human attributes to AI is the problem that my point one addresses.

AI doesn't and can’t know anything. AI isn't and can’t be aware of anything. It has no consciousness at all and never will. AI is itself never going to be human. It is software.

Being fed data, being programmed, etc., does not mean the machine software actually has any awareness at all, knows or understands anything at all. It is just machine software. It cannot think, cannot reason, cannot comprehend. It cannot ponder or appreciate its solutions. Everything about it that attempts to mimic such human functions is completely artificial. These limits are known and obvious.

 

[Van]

If you really don't understand a point, then ask for clarification rather than saying the point is false. But doubling down by saying, “OTOH, your claim # 1 is obviously false,” while admitting a serious lack of understanding really takes the cake.

I did not say anything about "human hands" in that point, and given the definitions of inhuman and its context in point one, etc., that is about as unreasonable an interpretation as could be imagined. Similar for unknowing and unaware.

While you “did not claim AI would remain unaware,” the fact is that it will always be unaware. It cannot be otherwise. It is merely machine software.

Associating human attributes to AI is the problem that my point one addresses.

AI doesn't and can’t know anything. AI isn't and can’t be aware of anything. It has no consciousness at all and never will. AI is itself never going to be human. It is software.

Being fed data, being programmed, etc., does not mean the machine software actually has any awareness at all, knows or understands anything at all. It is just machine software. It cannot think, cannot reason, cannot comprehend. It cannot ponder or appreciate its solutions. Everything about it that attempts to mimic such human functions is completely artificial. These limits are known and obvious.

Sorry Sir but I understood your terms as defined in the dictionary. You do not know the limits of AI. Full stop.

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?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Sorry Sir but I understood your terms as defined in the dictionary. You do not know the limits of AI. Full stop.

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?

Your posts demonstrate no such understanding. A full stop would be highly recommended at this point. Ah, if only.

So, what shall we say then? These posts of yours are prime examples of why your posts should not be considered useful for guiding or informing anyone about translating, interpreting, etc., the stopped clock effect not withstanding.

 

[Van]

Your posts demonstrate no such understanding. A full stop would be highly recommended at this point. Ah, if only.

So, what shall we say then? These posts of yours are prime examples of why your posts should not be considered useful for guiding or informing anyone about translating, interpreting, etc., the stopped clock effect not withstanding.

Why are you addressing me and not the position?

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?

It does not take intelligence, natural or artificial, to use fallacious argumentation, i.e. against the man.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:
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?

Currently there is an effort to say we should stop development to word smith programs, chat-bots if you will, because of the threat such programs present to many current jobs. Why study history if you simply ask AI to write 1000 words on the battle of Midway? Einstein said we do not need to know everything, only how to find it.*

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.

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.

As a young person I was taught many things that today are not in demand because devices can perform that function for me. Yes, technological displacement has and will continue to eliminate jobs, just ask those who used to deliver ice blocks. Soon many of the jobs servicing internal combustion engines will be lost due to people driving all electric vehicles. The times are changing, as the digital revolution marches on.
_______________________
* “It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” (Einstein)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Well, admittedly, AI could actually excel at that latter approach.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Why are you addressing me and not the position?

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?

It does not take intelligence, natural or artificial, to use fallacious argumentation, i.e. against the man.

LOL. Equating "your posts" to "you" is on you. And telling me that I don’t know something is addressing me. Van said: “You do not know the limits of AI.” Talk about fallacious argumentation “against the man,” this crops up not infrequently in your posts.

There is an obvious ploy in your posts here designed to avoid addressing the limits of AI that are known and obvious by saying no one knows all of the limits of AI, which was never my point. The truth is that certain limits, very important limits, are known and are obvious to humans who bother to think about it, something AI cannot do.

Your posts avoided addressing the point made a few back, instead expressing admitted ignorance while yet claiming understanding that they obviously lack, and ignoring explanation which has been amply provided. To put it mildly, the maturity and insight expressed in your posts, as well as their resultant usefulness, cannot be underestimated.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Back to the OP and thread title:

AI is seriously limited by the fact that it will always be machine software, which can never function as aware of what it is doing, never actually know anything, but can only imitate human intelligence. Thus it is called Artificial Intelligence. This is an obvious and known limit of AI.

And that is a major reason why AI cannot handle translation and interpreting as a human expert can. In general, AI can never know how well it expresses communication or analyzes communication. AI will never understand human communication. For better or worse, AI can never be more than a tool for humans.

AI is machine software. AI does not have and will never have mind, will, or emotion. AI cannot think, cannot feel, cannot have its own direction. Thinking humans will not only see that this is so, but need to keep this in mind, so that they don’t attribute to the machine software what it is incapable of.

 

[Van]

LOL. Equating "your posts" to "you" is on you. And telling me that I don’t know something is addressing me. Van said: “You do not know the limits of AI.” Talk about fallacious argumentation “against the man,” this crops up not infrequently in your posts.

There is an obvious ploy in your posts here designed to avoid addressing the limits of AI that are known and obvious by saying no one knows all of the limits of AI, which was never my point. The truth is that certain limits, very important limits, are known and are obvious to humans who bother to think about it, something AI cannot do.

Your posts avoided addressing the point made a few back, instead expressing admitted ignorance while yet claiming understanding that they obviously lack, and ignoring explanation which has been amply provided. To put it mildly, the maturity and insight expressed in your posts, as well as their resultant usefulness, cannot be underestimated.

More "against the man" with the old you are as bad as those you complain about" chestnut.
Here is what RT said, "your posts should not be considered useful for guiding or informing anyone about translating, interpreting, etc." Then RT claimed he was referring to only the topic of AI. Go figure.
Did I address that the limits of AI are unknown? Yes.

To coin a phrase, the maturity and insight expressed in your posts as well as the resultant usefulness, cannot be underestimated," because taint so posts are useless.

Back to the OP and thread title:
RT Said:
"AI is seriously limited by the fact that it will always be machine software, which can never function as aware of what it is doing, never actually know anything, but can only imitate human intelligence. Thus it is called Artificial Intelligence. This is an obvious and known limit of AI.

And that is a major reason why AI cannot handle translation and interpreting as a human expert can. In general, AI can never know how well it expresses communication or analyzes communication. AI will never understand human communication. For better or worse, AI can never be more than a tool for humans.

AI is machine software. AI does not have and will never have mind, will, or emotion. AI cannot think, cannot feel, cannot have its own direction. Thinking humans will not only see that this is so, but need to keep this in mind, so that they don’t attribute to the machine software what it is incapable of."

1) No one claimed AI would become self aware.
2) The limit of AI's potential is unknown.
3) AI could be used to help in translation. JOJ linked to evidence.
4) No one claimed AI would be more than a "tool" for better translation.
5) AI can perform similar processes with similar results to human efforts.

 

[Piper]

Well, admittedly, AI could actually excel at that latter approach.

That is true.

 

[John of Japan]

3) AI could be used to help in translation. JOJ linked to evidence.

I've left this thread because of Van's insults. I will not get involved in an insult exchange. But Van referred to me here so I'll briefly note: I linked to a site which talks about AI being a tool for translation. However, Van's OP supposed that AI would not be just a tool, but would replace those of us who teach Greek--his term was "obsolete". And he intimated that Bible translation could be carried on solely by AI, thus replacing the Bible translator. Here's what he said:

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?
...snip
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.

Okay, I've made my point. Carry on. I certainly will carry on teaching and translating--and mentoring as a teacher and translator, a point that Van never addressed and something AI can never do.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Too many insults and non-profitable "debate".

Thread closed.