We wanted to buy train tickets the other day, but it was just a lottery and no way to actually buy tickets in advance, do you know what's up with that? Buying flights was just normal so sadly we just did that.
This reaction is interesting to me. In many jurisdictions around the world, police are required to call off a chase if it is deemed unsafe for any reason.
In what world do you think it is OK for a 12-year-old boy riding an e-scooter to die after being chased by police? Before you respond: Ask yourself how you would react if it was your son (or close relative). Any parent would devasted.
I don't participate in clan mentality, where every tragedy has to be blamed on an outsider. An accident is tragic, it doesn't make it any less tragic that it was the kid's own fault. Or if you can't stand not having somebody else to blame, it's clearly the parent's fault.
Both sides are to be blamed, only one side are professional adults who are trained protect our community. A pursue is always dangerous, not only for the suspect but also for the cops and bystanders so it should not be done if not absolutely necessary.
Setting aside the question who is to be blamed, using motorcycles to pursue kids on bikes will cause the deaths of more kids. Is that a price worth paying? No.
It's been at least 10 years that google translate had hallucinations.
Some translation simply change depending of a ponctuation mark.
But peoples complain only now that they heard about AI.
Of course it's not perfect, but I agree that we didn't had a machine translation as good before.
Could you please explain briefly then why my statement is wrong? What are the fundamental challenges not addressed by LLMs today? Do you think the whole approach has insurmountable roadblocks ahead, or is it more of a matter of refinement?
Context dependant phrases, from simple pronouns to whole domain specific terms, are still randomly wrong, sometimes appallingly so. Hallucinations still happen. Auto-AI translation youtube uses is, bluntly, horrid. Any jokes, even obvious ones, are still fumbled frequently.
LLM based translation looks more convincing but requires the same level of scrutiny that previous tools did. From a workflow POV they only added higher compute costs for very questionable gains.
> Auto-AI translation youtube uses is, bluntly, horrid. Any jokes, even obvious ones, are still fumbled frequently.
Youtube auto-translations are horrible indeed, and I say that as someone that has to live with the fact that Youtube decides to badly translate titles from a language I understad to Spanish because bilingual people don't exist I suppose. But that is because they use some dumb cheap model to make the translations; probably not even a Gemini-based model.
> Hallucinations still happen. Auto-AI translation youtube uses is, bluntly, horrid. Any jokes, even obvious ones, are still fumbled frequently.
I've seen that too, but these were all dedicated translation tools and auto-translate functionality.
My benchmark is against SOTA LLMs used directly. I.e. I copy the text (or media) in question, paste directly to ChatGPT or Gemini (using the best model on basic paid tier), and ask for translation. Not always perfect, but nearly so - and they naturally ingest additional context if available - such as the surrounding text, or title/ID/URI of the document/website you're looking at, or additional explanations in the prompt - and make very good use of it. This has always been missing in dedicated tools, historically built around the mistaken assumption that translation is merely a function of input text and pair of language designators (from, to). The shorter the input, the more apparent it becomes how much context matters.
RE YouTube and such - or, like any auto-transcription in video calls I've seen - I can't explain that by anything other than service providers cheapening out on this.
> From a workflow POV they only added higher compute costs for very questionable gains.
Regarding the costs - I imagine they may be an issue at scale, but for regular use (on-demand translation of individual passages, documents, recordings), it feels like it shouldn't be that noticeable anymore. You don't need to run GPT-5 for everything, some models you can run client-side already seem decent enough, and they keep improving.
> LLM based translation looks more convincing but requires the same level of scrutiny that previous tools did.
That's fair. Ultimately, if you don't know both languages, you can only trust the translation as much as you trust the translator (human or otherwise). We'll have to get a feel for this as much as we did with Google Translate, et al. In my experience, whenever I can verify them, results from LLMs are already vastly superior to prior art.
--
Tangent, and why I started considering LLMs as solving universal translation in the first place: 6 months ago, when I needed to talk with someone with whom I had zero language overlap, I tried several well-known translation apps (notably Google and Samsung), and none could manage - but then, on a whim, I just asked ChatGPT (in "advanced voice" mode) to "play a game" where it listens in and repeats whatever was just said in language A, but translated to language B, and vice versa -- and it worked flawlessly on first try.
I don’t want nor need on device translation enabled by default. I’ve gone without it for the three decades in which browsers have been around. I’m sure it’s brilliantly useful for some people. A one time ‘would you like to enable AI on startup’ for at least years with user profiles that are significantly old would at least be a show of good faith.
What confuses me the most is the kernel goes actually to great lengths not to break userspace, but if you rely on anything else than the kernel stuff breaks all the time, and distributions never update a released version to a newer kernel but just patch old kernels for years. So why do the kernel developers even bother?
I agree that if you want to pursue economic growth laissez-faire is possibly the best course of action, but economic growth isn't the only metric worth pursuing.
I have no idea where you got that idea from. If anything the EU has been focused way too much on the economy, hoping trade and economic growth will solve all problems.
1. Watching the standard of living in the US outpace the EU for decades and comparing their economic systems.
2. Basic common sense tells you that you need resources in order to fund a welfare state, a long list of positive human rights, and all the other things that the EU states want to do. Money buys resources, especially when you don't have direct access to them (which is the case for most EU states).
Probably one of these scissor statements where economic leftists think that obviously the problem is focusing way too much on [X] and the others saying the problem is focusing far too little on [X].
To some extent yes, but the issue the leftists have in this case is that X = money (or the equivalent in resources) which is absolutely required in large quantities to enact their political agenda.
You'd think so, but paying all the people who sit around and think of things to regulate, the people who actually write the regulations, the people who enact the regulations, and the people who enforce the regulations is not a trivial cost, especially at the scale that the EU wants to regulate things.
Also, the actual political agenda is based around a welfare state, which absolutely costs money to maintain.
I like infinite scrolling. Probably most users like it. My country's government banning apps from letting me infinite scroll in them sounds very paternalistic and silly.
I make apps for myself above all else. I always add infinite scrolling support to all my apps. It's just a better and smoother experience than pagination.
Obviously one cannot simply accept any potential societal trade-off in favor of benefitting the economy, but going too far in the opposite direction eventually manifests as worse living standards for the average person, which is not beneficial to society.
"How does banning unhealthy food make society worse?" "How does banning unhealthy habits make society worse?" "How does banning harmful/hateful speech make society worse?" "How does banning things and, as a result, our economy stagnating, make society worse?"
Pam Bondi suggested that it would be impossible to prosecute the pedophiles, because the economy would collapse. To which many people reacted: then let it collapse. You remind me of Pam Bondi.
Except Bondi was wrong and I am right, and also letting the economy collapse actually would be really, really bad and saying things like that is something only children and economically illiterate people do.
Also, most of the things I listed in my previous post had absolutely nothing to do with the economy. It's just that it's unethical and tyrannical for the government to dictate people's behavior in this way. "How is it unhealthy for the government to ban alcohol?" These statements would apply whether in a socialistic or fully neoliberal country.
reply