Kurzweil: Human-Level Machine Translation By 2029 186
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.'"
The vodka is good... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ray Kurzweil's predictions (Score:5, Funny)
I predict that in 2029 computers will surpass Ray Kurzweil in making overly optimistic predictions. :-)
And the machine goes ... (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Re:Ray Kurzweil's predictions (Score:4, Funny)
Ironically, those wars have put a lot of money into translation applications.
Re:The vodka is good... (Score:3, Funny)
but does it understand the binary language of moisture vaporators?
Your post translated and back again on Google (Score:5, Funny)
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