[swatcoder]

That's not the state of today at all, and probably doesn't represent the near or medium future.

Using the unmonitored output of a LLM-translation service for your commercial content, outputting in languages you can't read, represents a big reduction in quality assurance and greatly increases the risk of brand embarrassment and possibly even product misrepresentation, while leaving you with no recourse to blame or shift liability.

> If I was a vendor whose business was at all centered around language or data ETL or anything that involves taking text and doing something with it, I would be absolutely terrified at someone writing a 20-line python script with a good system prompt that would make my entire business's reason for being evaporate.

The more likely future is that existing translation houses will increasingly turn to LLM-assistance to raise the efficiency and lower the skill threshold for their staff, who still deliver the actual key values of quality assurance and accountability. This will likely drive prices down and greatly reduce how many people are working as translators in these firms, but it's an opportunity for them, not a threat.

LLM's don't seem to be on track to be the foolproof end-user tools that the earyl hype promised. They don't let us magically do everything ourselves and (like crypto being imcompatible with necessary regulations), they don't offer all the other assurances that orgs need when they hire vendors. But they can very likely accelerate trained people in certain cases and still have an impact on industry through specialty vendors that build internal workflows around them.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< That's not the state of today at all, and probably doesn't represent the near or medium future.

Thank you for saying this. I briefly wondered if my particular company is just way behind or particularly dysfunctional and disorganized ( a possibility for sure ). I do agree with you observation on LLMs effectively lowering entry level skill ( yesterday I was able to dissect xml file despite it not being something I could normally do without any prep work and despite mildly unusual - I thought - formatting choices by vendor ). There was still a fair amount of back and forth for what some enthusiast would call 'perfect prompt' and interesting bugs that had to be addressed, but, having seen the daily mess at my company does not exactly make me a full blown evangelist. I see it more as a get to the wrong answer faster. That is the part that concerns me.

[incrudible]

This sums up my view on AI and machine autonomy in general. The human added value is accountability. For a similar reason, outsourcing to faceless off shore companies usually does not work out.

There is nothing to suggest that AI will not require an expert in the loop in the future. Every single one of these products has a disclaimer that it will produce false and misleading results.

Of course, there are only so many experts needed for a given problem domain to fulfill all the demand, but that is true even without automation.

[chinabot]

You may be right, but I would approach this with an open mind. Whether the trajectory of AI development remains an asymptote to human intelligence or surpasses it entirely, the increasing investment, involvement of diverse stakeholders, and growing stakes suggest that virtually every job role may face disruption or, at the very least, re-evaluation.