It seems to me like we're saying the same thing. I'm saying that there is a practical bias, as in, it's there in the real world whether we like it or not, that can prevent some papers from appearing just because of limitations on English-language fluency, not because of any lack of scientific content. One solution is to get rid of it, but that's a long-term project. If we have an immediate remedy that works, if the authors still take responsibility for the scientific content, and if the use of the tool that provides that remedy is responsibly disclosed, then it seems like a win all around, except perhaps that it makes the need for the longer-term solution less obvious.

To your tastes maybe. Will it get through the editor's desk at a scientific journal as easily?

I'd way rather read a translation in which the author themselves has played a part, and at least nominally signed off on it, than one done on the fly with even less than usual guarantee of its correctness.

(I agree that authors should be able to publish in their first language, but I also note that the historical practicality has been that publication in non-dominant languages has resulted more in silos than in broadening access.)