Hipyan Nopri wrote:
I voted for the fourth option.
In my own experience, the effect depends largely on how the tool is used.
If AI output is accepted without question, I can see how a translator’s skills might gradually weaken.
However, when I treat AI as a discussion partner, questioning its suggestions, checking terminology against reliable sources, and weighing alternative renderings, I find that it actually sharpens my critical thinking and broadens my knowledge.
I also compare the output of two different AI tools, since each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Sometimes one offers the better rendering or term, and sometimes the other does, so I still have to evaluate both and decide for myself.
In the end, the responsibility for every word and every decision remains with the translator, and I believe that is exactly where it should stay.
Are you seriously saying that when it comes to legal terminology there is now suddenly such a dearth of direct/primary sources and websites maintained by legal experts that you are in dire need to ask for help an algorithm programmed to rather confabulate then say 'I don't know'?
Taking the chance of repeating myself, how boring.
Login to reply/comment 
