Topic: Isn't rule 27 outdated? - page 4. (Read 1191 times)

First you must consider contexts and homonyms, Auto tools always fail in words with same spelling but different meanings. For instance, bark has multiple meanings, you could be referring to a tree bark while the tool would translate to a dog bark. This mistake will probably be omitted by a person who is not proficient, because they could differentiate in their writing which one they're talking about. Moreover, auto translators are hard to read and understand, could it translate idioms? Only a native speaker can interprete such things, and in literature every single detail matters.

Gradually, you are begining to admit that AI is now made sophisticated to outperform humans in translating their native language, which is a lie. Those tools are just fine for  people who don't really understand the language. They'll be no way an automatic tool will translate English to my local dialect that I wouldn't find out, it's just obvious. Have you ever tried conversing with a German on social media using auto translators, how does the conversation flow?

Finally, you also failed to realize, where you mentioned optimizing your text with AI, the difference between AI generated content and AI edited contents. Take grammarly for example, there now have a beta version that helps to rewrite your text to suit native readers, AI does it, and it's far better than relying on such tools to build a content from scratch. Have you been to Quora lately, the quality of answers there dropped so much, because of AI generated contents. The rule 27 is fine the way it is, at least locals should be able to communicate with genuine native speakers of their language, the fun of natural conversation is unbeaten.

Why you can't prove it? isn't native speaker know if the grammar off or use wrong words?

I think it's not outdated, but it's more like subjective.

Just like there are so many low quality and off topic posts, but the posts weren't deleted even though they broke the first and second rules. So, we're get used for that including people who broke the rule 27.

Someone tell me if you can prove that Best_Change has used an automatic translator for the posts on the Spanish board, because I can't.

¡Olvídate de buscar intercambiadores (exchangers)! ¡Utiliza BestChange!

When that rule was put in place, I understand that ten years ago, translators had not yet reached anywhere near the level of sophistication that they have today. In most cases they are indistinguishable from the text written by a native speaker.

Besides, what is the point of the rule? If the translated content posted on the local forum is spam or low value it already breaks other rules and can be reported, but if it is interesting, why can't it be posted if it is automatically translated whereas it can be posted if translated by my friend who has a certain level but is not proficient?

Not to mention that nowadays I can write a text in English, which is not my native language, and run it through an AI to optimise it. There is no need to go to Chat GPT, a translator like DeepL also has that function.