picard102
Senior Member
We constantly get notes from our Quebec stores about how we did it wrong, and how it should have been. All conflicting with each other and our in house full time translator.
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
evandyk
Senior Member
I supervise legal work across the country, so often have to review material that’s from Quebec which has been drafted in French and will be finalized and filed in French. Of course, I don’t speak high level French at the level required to review legal wroting. The big law firms now have LLM based translation tools to translate stuff for this purpose, and it’s miles ahead of where it was a year ago. I suspect translation as a job will be gone in a year or two, except for very specialized/technical translation services.
For stuff like email blasts to all employees, those are still translated by humans, but I doubt that will last. For email blasts to customers, the human translators will probably hang on a bit longer because of the higher importance of technical accuracy, cultural IQ, etc., which humans are still better at ensuring, but I’m not sure how much longer.
I think AI is overhyped, but it’s going to result in major and very fast change for certain industries and jobs. Of course, that’s not new, especially in the last few decades.
For stuff like email blasts to all employees, those are still translated by humans, but I doubt that will last. For email blasts to customers, the human translators will probably hang on a bit longer because of the higher importance of technical accuracy, cultural IQ, etc., which humans are still better at ensuring, but I’m not sure how much longer.
I think AI is overhyped, but it’s going to result in major and very fast change for certain industries and jobs. Of course, that’s not new, especially in the last few decades.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
The entire Google apparatus is old school nowadays. The very fact that they did not lead the development and introduction of AI, and now they can’t even make a credible copy goes to show that their near monopoly in web search and office apps has created a big, complacent beast teetering towards obsolescence.
Google’s A.I. Search Errors Cause a Furor Online
The company’s latest A.I. search feature has erroneously told users to eat glue and rocks, provoking a backlash among users.
Paywall free: https://archive.is/RopFc
afransen
Senior Member
The 'transformers' of general purpose transformer (GPT) is Google research.The entire Google apparatus is old school nowadays. The very fact that they did not lead the development and introduction of AI, and now they can’t even make a credible copy goes to show that their near monopoly in web search and office apps has created a big, complacent beast teetering towards obsolescence.
Google’s A.I. Search Errors Cause a Furor Online
The company’s latest A.I. search feature has erroneously told users to eat glue and rocks, provoking a backlash among users.www.nytimes.com
Paywall free: https://archive.is/RopFc
Google has a long history of failing to productize their R&D. They've had advanced AI models for quite some time, and they have just very recently been put in a position where they felt forced to ship products even if they are not fully baked.
gabe
Senior Member
At the time of the crash he was a new driver and had previous violations. And should not have been driving. The trucking company should be blamed and punished as well. Other wise we are just deporting one bad driver and replacing him with another bad foreign driver.
These mickey mouse driving schools are a big part of the problem too. No wonder we got so many bad drivers on the road.
Driving schools selling shortcuts to insurance discounts and faster road tests, investigation reveals
Schools submit false information to government saying drivers completed 40 hours of training
afransen
Senior Member
That's more an insurance fraud thing. They still have to pass the G2 test.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Rules vary by province but minimal training standards coupled with virtually no government oversight of both driving schools and commercial fleet operators (in Ontario anyway) result in what we get on the road these days. The Humboldt driver might not be a particular outlier in the CMV industry, but it can't be denied that he killed a lot of people and was convicted of a serious criminal offence as a non-citizen.
*****
*****
Maybe it will help the instructions I receive with a lot of stuff I buy that seems to be translated into English by one of my dogs.
goreckm
Active Member
It is also likely near as good as its ever going to get given the flood of absolute harbage that is being generated on the internet and will invariably be ingested into subsequent models.
In terms of generated code, that's laughable. I personally tried some of these tools and they're absolutely hilariously wrong much of the time, and severely hamper productivity if you're doing anything beyond some extremely basic demo, which can just be copy and pasted off stackoverflow or something.
And in terms of the future, it's always harder for humans to catch mistakes as a code-reviewer than writer, (even if it is an important process of development). Humans writing the code (or editorials, etc) and then having tools do analysis after the fact to help find issues will always yield a superior product. But that increase in quality also requires more human time, not less.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Our US allies might think that's playing it too close. I'm not sure our critics would agree that commercial satellites with a CAF use can be considered legitimate spending towards the NATO commitment.
Really, the NATO target for all members should be measured on OpEx, not CapEx spending. For example, the new submarines are said to cost about $60 billion, which sounds like a huge shot in the arm against Canada's 2023 total defence budget of $26.5 billion. But once those submarines are built, the $60 billion is gone from the books, and our NATO spend drops. Therefore the only true measure of NATO spend should be the ongoing expenditure towards keeping the CAF operational.
To be fair, I recall a story that Greece was applying the pension costs of retired military servicemembers towards their NATO spend; so I expect many NATO members are play fast and loose. Even in the UK, once you omit the expenses on their nuclear deterrent (missiles, SSBNs, etc.), their defence spend falls well below their 2% NATO commitment.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Why? We count that spending now. And so do our other allies. Paying for capacity is a defence expenditure even if not used. I
There's a specific sub requirement. The goal is to spend 2% on defence and 20% of the total defence spending on capital programs and R&D. Canada is unique in NATO in not achieving either target.
Also, focusing on opex exclusively will not give a real measure of capability. Countries would simply under equip and overpay. Which is to some extent what Canada is doing.
That's not fast and loose. Pension costs are the cost of having military personnel. They are supposed to be counted. We didn't do that before. This was one of the definitions changed by the Liberals in 2017.
I don't know why you'd exclude the cost of a nuclear deterrent. It's not a small matter. The British and American and (to a lesser extent) French deterrents provide a nuclear security umbrella to the entire alliance and ensure we don't need to field our own deterrent or much larger and more complex militaries.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not according to this guy....
Absolutely. But some ambiguity is better than none. And for the Europeans, French doctrine is particularly scary to the Russians. And that ambiguity and deterrence is still more than the rest of us could provide conventionally.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Imagine making Canada bad enough that emigration to post-Trump's America hit's peak in a decade. And it's mostly going to be the most talented leaving. All those medical professionals needed to take care of us and the technical professionals and entrepreneurs we hope to drive our economy.
picard102
Senior Member
It's not our best and brightest moving to the US because they "hate the politics here" and need to move to the dumpster fire of politics that is Florida.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The stats were national. The article just happening to focus a narrative on Florida. Nowhere in the article do they say the majority of people moving to the US, are moving to Florida.