I don't know how to comment about the technological advance WITHOUT sounding hypocritical. The world changes whether we like it or not. Whether it is getting better with as it changes, can be a matter of opinion. I always thought that when the world advanced (in a technological way) that meant it was getting better, and if you look at the statistics, it would seem that fewer of us are dying for things we used to die of in the past. And fewer of us are getting killed in wars, but we are now getting killed for different reasons and in different ways. Technological advance always means change, but does it always mean for the better? The question of the MODERN AGE.
The first automatic weaving machines in England put many weavers out of work. I'm sure most people would agree that OVERALL this was a positive change, since it meant cheaper and in some cases, better textiles. To the fellow who just lost his job, this was probably only a small comfort. He could buy cheaper socks, but, of course, he was probably weaving his own anyway. The owner's of the factories, undoubtedly felt that they deserved all the money they were now making, and the EX-weavers should just move on and find other work. The consumer liked the cheaper product, and though they were sympathetic to the weaver's plight, really couldn't tell one sock from the other. The weavers, once considered craftsmen, were now just unemployed burdens. Some weavers rebelled, and broke a few machines. The same thing happened in Silesia in the 19th century. Neither rebellion turned out well for the anti-technology camp.
These new, Jacquard looms were programmed using cards. James Burke in his TV show "Connections" makes the case that these early weaving "programs" were precursors to modern software. Now software has the ability to make (at least rudimentary) translations of written text into a target language. Obviously there are a lot of human translators doing the same thing and making a living at it. Are these translator programs a good or a bad thing?
Humans are communicators, whether we like to admit it or not. Even the fellow who withdraws from the crowd, or has a stony face, is sending a message. However, speech/language is our primary means of getting a message across. Our language skill is often used to judge our intelligence level or our class.
So is this the reason I'm turned off by these machine translation (MT) programs? Is someone using a machine to translate a foreign text AS SMART as a translator who is fluent and comfortable in both languages? One thing I have noticed in those using MT, is the tendency of some to think there is only one answer to a translation. Without even really understanding the source language, they COMPARE their machine translations to a target language. Then they CLEAN it up , NOT interpreting the actual source text, but what their computer THINKS the source text means. This DIVINING of the source text becomes the translation.
Let me make it clear, that I also use Computer Assisted Translation software and I like it very much. I was never a fan of leafing through huge dictionaries to find obscure words. I'm very happy that the amount of work required to produce a quality translation has been greatly reduced. However, the LOOKING UP part is a just a small part of the overall translation. In a truly accurate translatio, each sentence or word must be taken in context of the entire work to be translated. We must be able to interpret not only what the author of the text says, but also what the author means. And it must be readable.
When poor Ned Lud broke those first two automatic knitting machines in a fit of insane rage, I don't believe he was trying to save the world. He acted in a totally human way to a threat to his livelihood, to his way of life. In the end, one may argue that his RAGE against the machine was ultimately of no value. Many of us, however, can certainly understand his feelings of helplessness against a system that, in the end, destroyed the world as he knew it.
No comments:
Post a Comment