As you point out, I would prefer to parse a text string as early as possible, so that I could pass around structured data instead of having to parse the same string over and over.
That seems so obvious that I can't imagine what the author meant.
When I was 12, I made a "smoke bomb" by placing a fire cracker in the bottom of a tube and topping it up with powdered clay. It shoot out a 4 m tall plume of dust, which was cool and all, but I thought it would look a lot more impressive with a black plume.
So I painstakingly ground down some charcoal to fine dust and redid the same experiment. That gave a much more impressive boom, but no dust plume, which puzzled me until I learned about dust explosions.
On the other hand, a lot of people become extremely put off by the smallest sign of ai slop. And the llms have a tendency to impart their style to any text they touch.
You acknowledge your test is fundamentally flawed but then still use it for the basis of your conclusion. It’s worse not better that you were aware of this.
I tried this with the original comment in the thread. Guaranteed to not be in the corpus, references a few terms that also wouldn't be in the corpus (Claude Fable), and long enough to be more than a sentence or two while short enough to compare in a discussion like this.
I did this with entirely local models I have sitting around on my laptop. Minimax M2.7 at a 3 bit quant with 8 bit quantized KV cache for English -> French, Gemma 4 31B QAT (4 bit quant) MTP for French -> English.
It's perfectly readable, but there are a few places where the phrasing is a bit more awkward after the double translation ("auditing" to "revision" in particular is a bit off). Gemma did comment on not knowing what Claude Fable was in its thought process: "The author compares Ellsworth's translation with one produced by "Claude Fable" (likely a misspelling of "Claude" or a specific version of Claude)."
Here's the double translation:
"I have no doubt that a writer is better at translating than AI, but I must say that AI translation has become so good that I'm not sure how much longer the profession of translation will exist—or rather, it may become more a matter of revision.
"For example, I just read Lawrence Ellsworth's translation of The Three Musketeers, which I enjoyed immensely. I neither speak nor read French, but from what I understand, Ellsworth's translation is considered one of the most faithful translations of the work.
"Out of curiosity, I asked Claude Fable to translate the original French version of The Three Musketeers; I asked it to translate faithfully, but also to try to maintain the same playful tone as the original and to censor nothing.
"Once it was finished, I didn't read the entire result, but I compared a few individual chapters between Ellsworth's translation and Fable's.
"They were honestly remarkably similar. As far as I can tell, nothing was substantially different between Ellsworth's translation and Fable's. I think the prose in Ellsworth's translation was slightly better, but Fable's was actually perfectly readable. Again, I don't speak French, so I can't say for certain, but I don't believe I would have had a significantly different experience if I had read Fable's version instead of Ellsworth's.
"It is possible (and probable) that this is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy; Fable may have been trained using Ellsworth's translation and can therefore draw directly from it. Unfortunately, since I don't speak any language other than English, there is a sort of vicious circle: the only way to compare the fidelity of a translation is to compare it to other translations, but if other translations already exist, that will likely influence the results, and if a translation doesn't exist yet, I have no way of verifying it.
"I am going to continue reading Ellsworth's translations for the following stories simply because it feels more canonical to me, and as I said, I think the prose was slightly better."
As you point out, I would prefer to parse a text string as early as possible, so that I could pass around structured data instead of having to parse the same string over and over.
That seems so obvious that I can't imagine what the author meant.
reply