Because there are so many writers on this site, I thought this article I found on Literary Hub would be of real interest. I was about to translate one of my books to Greek using AI, so that some friends could read it, but had the sudden realization that once you put it out on AI it becomes part of that gigantic database that can be used for many purposes. Here's the article:
Harlequin France, which is owned by HarperCollins, has just confirmed that theyâre shifting away from human translators with an eye to robot replacements.
As The Bookseller reported this morning, this change has been in the works for several weeks. According to a letter published by the French Literary Translators Association and the collective En Chair et en Os (In Flesh and Bone: For Human Translation), âdozens of translators who regularly work with Harlequin [France]â have been informed that their contracts are ending, ASAP.
The human translators were told that their work will be now done via Fluent Planet, a communications agency that uses machine translation software. âFreelance proofreadersââLord help themâwill sculpt the results.
A Fluent Planet spokesperson told The Bookseller that the companyâs distinct hybrid model combines âin-house language assistance tools with systematic human translation carried out by professional literary translators.â Their offerings are not intended as a replacement for human expertise or editorial judgment, but a âsupport tool.â
HarperCollins France also made milky defense of whatâs clearly a bottom line decision. A spokesperson there told Publishers Weekly that âno Harlequin collection has been translated solely using machine translation generated by artificial intelligence.â But the âyetâ feels implied.
This move follows similar announcements made by other publishing imprints, including the U.K.-based Taylor & Francis. Translators are irate about the writing on the wall.
The FLTA condemned this latest move from a mega-house as âunacceptable,â and chided the âmentality that robs book workers of their expertise and creativity, and deprives readers of access to vibrant and humane literature.â
Romance writers (though really, all of us) are reminded to push for No AI clauses in their contracts, whenever possible. Up with writers! Down with algorithms!
E. Writer That's a fine thing to do. Growing up, we called it, "throwing rocks then hiding your hands."
I might have let it fly, but I dislike being quoted statements I did not write or say. It's a bit of a pet peeve towards the behavior of people on the internet, that has always stunk of intellectual dishonesty. Twist someone's words into meanings or statements never implied, then write a weird diatribe against it. I find this behavior irksome.
I am plain-spoken and direct. My statements require little interpretation. If a statement is being attributed to me that I did not make, even if it seems harmless on the surface, I'm going to push that back because I prefer to operate in truth at all times. That, and you are always a contrarian, pecking. But you only seem to have a habit of pecking where I leave crumbs, finding a contradiction somewhere or other--that might lend you the opportunity to preach against whatever contemptuous thing you've fabricated in your mind and assigned to my thought process. Preaching "personal responsibility" to me in lieu of a discussion on technology, was a little heavy-handed don't you think? Ugh.
After a 3rd or 4th time it's no longer a coincidence, it's intentional.
Perhaps, giving you the benefit of doubt, you don't intentionally mean to do those things and you are simply a person who is socially clueless. But it keeps happening, and it ends the same. You throw a rock. I throw one back, then you cry foul and play the victim who is being hectored.
I have peace where I go. I have no conflict, where I interact online or in my personal life. That is the life I wish to keep. If you are a contrarian who argues for argument's sake, better to engage people who enjoy conflict and disagreement, not me. We call this a positive social media platform for a reason. No one here argues about anything. Until you arrived.
Frank Hutton Not at all contrarian, because it's not @ all about you. That is not ever, not even a little. I mean who the hell cares about spewed ether shit? Not I, sez I.
Fact is, my obsessively considered rhetorical point/opinion is my point alone and I stick my prose hard to it best I can, lest dissuaded by someone making better argument, which occasion I truly relish. But when some ether wraith fails to do that, it's not on me. And whining about it never helps, either way. You know, speaking of responsibility.
You have a great day now.
E. Writer Unless you are dissuaded by someone making a better argument you say... If that's your aim, then you've missed the plot. Try to join the program.
Frank, no one here argues. No one here had argument until you arrived. Since you are a former Zoe-troper, as we all are, you are still here. The tension that was ever-present on Zoetrope, the rudeness, haughtiness, the years-long disagreements and spite between members, no one here is interested in that. We've existed for an entire year without a single conflict or argument over anything. No one is here to argue. No one is here to "dissuade" you from your point of view or subjective experiences.
We all talk shop. We talk writing. We talk art. We talk sciences. We talk about our work. If people want to argue or dissuade each other of their views, there's a special place for you on Facebook, X, Blusky, Instagram, where conflict and B.S. is the norm.
This site aims to be different. it is for the intelligentsia. The intellectual. The humorist. If that is not a program you can follow, then you've missed the point. Have your views, but try to do so without attacking other people and their subjective experiences and views. That's it. The community rules on Neighbahood are fairly simple. It only requires self-discipline, a bit of self-control. Whatever your opinions or points are, no one wants to dissuade them. That's the point of this site. To each his or her own.
Frank Hutton Holding to my opinion on whatever given subject provided someone more enlightened on the subject doesn't wander along and enlighten me with theirs isn't argument on my part and isn't made argument until someone valuing their opinion far higher than I do chooses to make it so. And truest me, I'm used to folk who's opinion on some given subject I don't value doing exactly that. But next time you choose to respond to some insight of mine with a litany of obviousness like I'm stupid, trust me to not respond.
There 'ya go, problem solved.
E. Writer You used the word argument, not me. "...lest dissuaded by someone making better argument..." Again, no one wants to dissuade anyone of anything. It's up to the individual to decide if someone else's view has greater merit.
I mean, it also goes without say that if someone comes along with a different view and you agree with it. Rebuttling someone else's view, instead of stating one's own is fostering conflict. We all have different perspectives, yet no one argues them. We state them and move on.
In the end, there's a difference between sharing a point of view and badgering other people with an opinion until you feel you've "won" the argument.
I concede that in your first reply about technology, you did exactly that (excepting that you chose to use the word "stupid" to describe what other people think compared to your views).
You only stated your view. My reply that people who create the technology are responsible for what they unleash on the world is where the conversation started to diverge, though my statement was not personal towards you or your view. Just what I felt about big tech. Your comment after that, is where it really went off the rails.
There's a positive way and a negative way to engage instead of going back and forth on what is "is." This conversation is an unfortunate example of that.