>People trust Google Translate to not go off-topic or "hallucinate"
Then "people" have no idea what they're doing. Google Translate and Deepl "hallucinate" way more than the likes of GPT-4 and Claude 3 for Translation.
Then "people" have no idea what they're doing. Google Translate and Deepl "hallucinate" way more than the likes of GPT-4 and Claude 3 for Translation.
"Swarming like a swarm of bees. He was carried among the people, hanging from the handle. No matter how good you think about the situation you're in, it's disgusting. Where are you now?"
is a comparable translation to this:
"No matter how you couch it, riding the subway feels disgusting: you dangle like ripe fruit from a hanging vine, squeezed in among humans swarming like bees."
Or this ?:
"Being crammed among a swarm of humans, dangling from a strap as I'm carried along, is frankly disgusting, no matter how you look at it"
Could be better, but it communicates the key concepts and emotional tone?
Because nobody wants to translate literature with metaphorical language?
If you look at how humans translate literature, the translator becomes a part of the work (in the new language) because translating it is an art, not a science. There is no 'correct' translation, only ones that deliver a human experience or interpretation of the original.
So as I said, it's less useful as a test.
Getting something appropriate with GPT-4 is whole lot higher than chance which was kind of the point of all this.
>Using metaphorical or allegorical language as a test isn't that useful.
This is a big chunk of fiction which is most of the text that regularly gets translated. If you're not interested in translating fiction then great but "not a good test" is just silly.
"I'll use Google because GPT hallucinates" is a hilarious thing to say when Google still regularly devolves to half gibberish on distant language pairs.