Skip to content

Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale Logo Fediverso

Social Forum federato con il resto del mondo. Non contano le istanze, contano le persone

I'm writing this in English.

Uncategorized
47 15 189
  • @hongminhee @silverpill Hi. I'm curious (as a non-native english speaker on the other side of the argument), what gives you the confidence that machine translation won't be misread ?
    I'd be way less secure about my criticism of MT if the tools were able to probe the author for meaning but we're not quite there, and I think that MT in the hands of a polyglot-ish author has better chances of being somewhat useful (at least it's a huge difference from unedited/unverified client-side translations).

  • @fastfinge @hongminhee This cultural selectiveness is why I am for a constructed auxiliary language as lingua franca. The most popular is Esperanto, but there are technically better projects nowadays.

    @clv1 @fastfinge @hongminhee Esperanto is a terrible choice as an auxiliary language. It's not much easier for speakers of most languages than English is, being full of unnecessary things like a myriad of declensions: declining for number, gender, tense, aspect, word form, etc. But hey, at least it has maybe 50,000 L1 speakers.

  • @hongminhee @Gargron I’m sympathetic with your position of being on the language fringe on the Internet, because English is so dominant. My mother tongue is French, and I had to learn English as part of the mandatory French education.

    I still don’t share your partial defense of LLMs. Even anglophones will misconstrue each other’s argument and put words in each other’s mouth even though no machine translation was involved, no matter how up-to-date it would be.

    Furthermore, you mention “the people [you’re] addressing”, which for me is key. I could have replied to you in French, and yet I didn’t, because I want you to understand what I’m saying, and I don’t have any evidence you’d better understand me in French than in English. So yes, as soon as you choose a specific audience to address, it falls on you to pick the most appropriate language, there’s no way around it.

    Now if I wrote something in French and an anglophone started arguing with me over a poor machine-translated version of my text, it wouldn’t be my responsibility. The text would have been meant for a specific audience which they were obviously not a part of. The fact that it would be public doesn’t mean everybody in the world is entitled to a clear understanding of it, and it is neither your or my fault.

    Machine translation has always been a crutch, useful but limited, and no technological progress will erase the inherent friction of publicly expressing yourself on the Internet, because this friction exists even among speakers of the same language.

  • @patricus @hongminhee @clv1 It also doesn't solve any of the problems of "just learn English": can you afford the lessons? Do you have the cognitive ability to learn two languages? Do you have the time for the lessons? Are teachers and materials available? Are they accessible? Do you have a place to practice outside of the classroom? Also, "let's erase everyone's culture" doesn't sound, to me, like any better of an answer than "let's make one culture king".

    I speak as someone who studied French for eight years straight, an hour a day, and never managed to pass a single course. There are people who just literally can't, when it comes to language learning. I'm one of them. Though to be fair, it's almost certainly a combination of the environment, the instruction, and other factors, rather than some flaw innate to me. But either way, I've never found a method that works.

    I actually toyed with learning Korean, thinking that maybe it was the gendered nature of French, as well as the spelling, that was the problem. Plus I thought a more regular alphabet might help me. But after eight years of bashing my head against the French wall, I just...couldn't. Picking up a new language course felt like going back to hell, and I couldn't make myself stick with it for more than a week.

    @fastfinge @patricus @hongminhee Auxiliary languages are constructed to be easier on purpose. A regular alphabet is only one of many features that must be easy on a lingua franca, and there isn't a single natural language whose all features are easy. As for cognitive ability, as far as I've observed, it seems that the teaching method counts a lot. Have you tried different methods?

  • @hongminhee @silverpill Hi. I'm curious (as a non-native english speaker on the other side of the argument), what gives you the confidence that machine translation won't be misread ?
    I'd be way less secure about my criticism of MT if the tools were able to probe the author for meaning but we're not quite there, and I think that MT in the hands of a polyglot-ish author has better chances of being somewhat useful (at least it's a huge difference from unedited/unverified client-side translations).

    @hongminhee @silverpill I really think there could be a lot to do in terms of bridging the fluency gap in terms of UX. You refer to your experience flipping pages of dictionaries, and I relate to that quite hard : that's where I'd like to see effort and change in software.
    However, I feel comfortable bearing the responsibility of making my speech accessible to an English or Spanish speaker that doesn't speak French, and any failure would be mine.

  • @fastfinge @patricus @hongminhee Auxiliary languages are constructed to be easier on purpose. A regular alphabet is only one of many features that must be easy on a lingua franca, and there isn't a single natural language whose all features are easy. As for cognitive ability, as far as I've observed, it seems that the teaching method counts a lot. Have you tried different methods?

    @clv1 @hongminhee @patricus Yup! With French, I tried:
    * in-person classroom instruction (both in school and extra-curricular): material is often inaccessible, teachers are mixed quality, I eventually lag behind everyone else in the room and get left behind
    * total emersion (I live in Canada and have extended family that doesn't speak English): I never manage to take anything in, and just freeze up when addressed directly
    * independent correspondence courses: materials are more accessible and I can go at my own pace, but no matter how I study, I can't pass the tests or use what I've tried to learn in real life
    * apps (duolingo): accessibility varies. I eventually get pretty good at doing the exercises offered in the app, but that never generalizes in a way that lets me pass any formal tests or use the language

    My measures of success are:
    * able to have basic conversations in the language
    * able to pass Canadian government tests to be certified in the language for career purposes

    I have never achieved either of the above. And after eight years of failures, I've pretty much given up.
  • @hongminhee@hollo.social I think your post makes me think more critically about the use of LLMs for translation services. It is easy for me to judge from a position of privilege because I am a native English speaker, and I do not realize the access I am given simply because of it.

    While reading your post it also made me think about the sacrifices you made to contribute to this community. There are precious few people in the Asia-Pacific region who regularly contribute to AP development, and a large part of that is the language barrier.

    If LLM-translation makes the AP development community less euro-america-centric, then I am all for it. Cultural differences we can work through, but language barriers are harder to bypass!

    Aside, congratulations for making it onto Hacker News front page :)

  • @fastfinge @patricus @hongminhee Auxiliary languages are constructed to be easier on purpose. A regular alphabet is only one of many features that must be easy on a lingua franca, and there isn't a single natural language whose all features are easy. As for cognitive ability, as far as I've observed, it seems that the teaching method counts a lot. Have you tried different methods?

    @clv1 @fastfinge @hongminhee nah, I just heard someone speak Esperanto and I was like: yeah I'll die trying to learn this.

  • @hongminhee @silverpill I really think there could be a lot to do in terms of bridging the fluency gap in terms of UX. You refer to your experience flipping pages of dictionaries, and I relate to that quite hard : that's where I'd like to see effort and change in software.
    However, I feel comfortable bearing the responsibility of making my speech accessible to an English or Spanish speaker that doesn't speak French, and any failure would be mine.

    @ddelemeny@mastodon.xyz @silverpill@mitra.social The confidence comes from an asymmetry I suspect many non-native speakers will recognize: I can read English much better than I can write it.

    When I write in English on my own, I often know, as I'm writing, that something is off—that the sentence doesn't carry the weight I intended, or that the nuance I wanted is somewhere between the words I've chosen. I just don't always know how to fix it. When I write in Korean first and then work with an LLM, I can read the result and check it against what I meant. Sometimes I'll see a phrase and think: yes, exactly that, I didn't know how to get there myself. That moment of recognition is the verification step.

    So I'm not trusting the machine blindly. I'm using my reading ability—which is reasonably good—to audit an output that my writing ability couldn't have produced alone. It's an imperfect process, but it's not as unmoored as handing a text to a system and walking away.

    Your point about polyglot authors is well taken. The tool works better when the person using it can actually evaluate what it produces. I'd agree that's a meaningful distinction.

  • @clv1 @fastfinge @hongminhee nah, I just heard someone speak Esperanto and I was like: yeah I'll die trying to learn this.

    @clv1 @fastfinge @hongminhee also, it needs to sound cool when I was little, English sounded cool, I wanted to learn it, so I learned, as fast as I could, I asked my parents to find some native speaker to talk to, I was getting better and better. because I knew, English sounds cool so.

  • @clv1 @hongminhee @patricus Yup! With French, I tried:
    * in-person classroom instruction (both in school and extra-curricular): material is often inaccessible, teachers are mixed quality, I eventually lag behind everyone else in the room and get left behind
    * total emersion (I live in Canada and have extended family that doesn't speak English): I never manage to take anything in, and just freeze up when addressed directly
    * independent correspondence courses: materials are more accessible and I can go at my own pace, but no matter how I study, I can't pass the tests or use what I've tried to learn in real life
    * apps (duolingo): accessibility varies. I eventually get pretty good at doing the exercises offered in the app, but that never generalizes in a way that lets me pass any formal tests or use the language

    My measures of success are:
    * able to have basic conversations in the language
    * able to pass Canadian government tests to be certified in the language for career purposes

    I have never achieved either of the above. And after eight years of failures, I've pretty much given up.
    @hongminhee @clv1 @patricus I actually did seriously consider some sort of genetic problem. My grandmother (on my father's side) was a French speaker who had the exact same problems learning English. She took dozens of courses over her life, but never actually learned anything. And yet, both me and my grandmother have won awards for writing in our native languages, and had our writing published. My aunts and uncles are all bilingual, but none of my cousins on that side of the family are: they either speak only French or only English, just like me. So that's a strong pattern. On the other hand, the idea of a genetic inability to learn a second language just seems silly. Why wouldn't it make it harder to learn a first language?
  • @hongminhee @silverpill I see. One personal reason I don't want to rely on translators and prefer the "hard" way, is that I believe my reading and understanding is sharpened by my attempts at writing. That's the essence of the "immersion in a language" argument for me, and I have experienced it several times (positively by being immersed in English and Spanish speaking cultures, and negatively by lack of it in German and Korean). Do you relate to that ?

  • @hongminhee @silverpill I see. One personal reason I don't want to rely on translators and prefer the "hard" way, is that I believe my reading and understanding is sharpened by my attempts at writing. That's the essence of the "immersion in a language" argument for me, and I have experienced it several times (positively by being immersed in English and Spanish speaking cultures, and negatively by lack of it in German and Korean). Do you relate to that ?

    @hongminhee @silverpill How do you think translators shape or maintain your abilities in a foreign language, as opposed to research and experimentation ?

  • @julian@activitypub.space Thank you for saying this. The ActivityPub development community being Euro-America-centric isn't just a cultural observation. It shapes what gets built, what use cases are considered, and whose needs are treated as edge cases. Language is a big part of that, and I'm glad the point landed.

    And yes, apparently the chardet post found its audience. I was not expecting that particular piece to take off, but I'll take it!

  • @hongminhee@hollo.social do you think your writing skills will improve with continued reading of the LLM-reflected translations, to the point where you may no longer need it?

  • hongminhee@hollo.socialundefined hongminhee@hollo.social shared this topic on
  • @hongminhee @silverpill Maybe consider writing posts in both languages, Korean and English. Multi-language posting on the protocol side is in its early infancy and basically does not exist, but you at least don't seem to have the arbitrary character limit on posts that a certain blue elephant has. It might not be a bad idea to take advantage of that. Even if the english part is slightly broken, there is still the possibility of defaulting to a translation.

    Not sure how that would hold up in reality, but it seems like a reasonable option to me, even though translators in $current_year are getting worse instead of better in general. Google Translate is barely usable now.
  • @hongminhee @silverpill How do you think translators shape or maintain your abilities in a foreign language, as opposed to research and experimentation ?

    @ddelemeny@mastodon.xyz @silverpill@mitra.social I relate to the immersion argument, and I think it's part of why I avoided machine translation for so long—not out of principle, but because the output wasn't worth learning from. Older MT between Korean and English produced something closer to a word-by-word skeleton than actual language. You couldn't look at it and think: oh, that's how a native speaker would put it. It was more like a scaffold you had to tear down before building anything.

    LLMs are different enough that I've had to revise that instinct. The output is often genuinely idiomatic, and when I read a phrase that lands exactly right, there's a recognition that functions a lot like learning—the same feeling as encountering a sentence in a book and thinking: I'll remember that. I do find myself absorbing expressions that way, probably more than I would have expected.

    That said, I think your point holds at the edges. For shorter writing I still work without assistance, partly for practical reasons and partly because I notice the difference when I don't. So I suspect I'm arriving at something similar to what you're describing, just from the other direction—using the tool for longer texts while trying to keep the muscle from atrophying entirely on shorter ones.

    The dynamic you mention with German and Korean is interesting too. Korean was my concern about English; I imagine the lack of immersion shapes the experience in ways that are hard to compensate for with tools alone.

  • @silverpill @hongminhee

    I don’t interject this as an attack, but please realize that when you say “AI slop” you say “sloppy person who uses AI”.

    @hongminhee very clearly is not such a person, so please don’t imply they are, even if they chose an assistant you disapprove of to help them communicate.

    I am irritated by the term “AI slop” because it shifts the responsibility from the user to their tool, from the way they use the tool to something that’s inevitable.

    @lain_7 It would be the case if these tools weren't aggressively integrated in everything we use. If there's a murky water tap in your city, then it's up to the users to appropriately filter the output for safe consumption. Now if the murky water tap is forcibly installed in every household because the city received bribes for it, then the responsibility shifts from individual users to the murky water tap provider. Even if users can get somewhat safe water from adequate filtration.
  • @julian@activitypub.space I actually just addressed something close to this in a reply up the thread—might be worth a read!

  • @hongminhee @silverpill Maybe consider writing posts in both languages, Korean and English. Multi-language posting on the protocol side is in its early infancy and basically does not exist, but you at least don't seem to have the arbitrary character limit on posts that a certain blue elephant has. It might not be a bad idea to take advantage of that. Even if the english part is slightly broken, there is still the possibility of defaulting to a translation.

    Not sure how that would hold up in reality, but it seems like a reasonable option to me, even though translators in $current_year are getting worse instead of better in general. Google Translate is barely usable now.

    @phnt@fluffytail.org Multilingual posting is something I've actually been thinking about and experimenting with already. I'm building a fediverse platform for software developers called Hackers' Pub, where I've been prototyping exactly this kind of feature. My other project, @hollo@hollo.social, is where I post from right now, and I'd like to bring something similar there eventually—the main obstacle is that most fediverse platforms don't properly render multilingual posts even when they receive them—the protocol already supports it via contentMap, but implementations like Mastodon tend to pick one language arbitrarily rather than presenting all of them.

    Outside the fediverse, my blog already works this way: each post is written in multiple languages (Korean, Japanese, and English), not as translations filed separately but as the same post published in all three. It's a pattern I find natural given how I actually think and write across languages.

    On Google Translate: I stopped using it for Korean–English a long time ago, for the same reasons you'd expect. These days I mostly use Kagi Translate, which is LLM-based and noticeably better for distant language pairs. The gap between that and older MT is stark enough that I think “machine translation” has started to mean two quite different things depending on which generation of tools you're talking about.


Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    0 Views
    Meanwhile #Pakistan bombed #Kabultoo, cause why not, we need more wars. https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-pakistan-border-clashes-children-killed-taliban-44c7bb28cdf68615b413a81eb4e4fe36
  • WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW BANKSY'S IDENTITY

    Uncategorized
    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    2 Views
    @evan Seconded! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Banksy's identity is Not The Point!We're gawping at the spirit of his art. Not a name.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    0 Views
    End of “Chat Control”: Paving the Way for Genuine Child Protection!The controversial mass surveillance of private messages in Europe could soon come to an end. Negotiations between the European Parliament and EU member states regarding the extension of the so-called “Chat Control” concluded yesterday without an agreement. This means that starting April 4, US tech giants like Meta, Google, and Microsoft must stop indiscriminately scanning the private chats and photos of European citizens. The digital privacy of correspondence is restored.The Myth of a Legal VacuumThis does not create a legal vacuum—quite the opposite. Ending indiscriminate mass scanning clears the path for modern, effective child protection. Targeted surveillance based on reasonable suspicion and a judicial warrant remains fully permissible, as does the routine scanning of public posts and hosted files. User reporting also remains fully intact.New Study Proves: Chat Control Software is FlawedJust in time for the end of the negotiations, a newly published scientific study provides the final nail in the coffin for the current system of indiscriminate chat control: Renowned IT security researchers analyzed the standard “PhotoDNA” algorithm, which is used by companies like Apple, Meta, and Microsoft for Chat Control. Their damning verdict: The software is “unreliable,” and there are “serious doubts on the suitability of PhotoDNA for the large-scale detection of illicit content.”The researchers proved that criminals can render illegal images invisible to the scanner through minimal alterations (e.g., adding a simple border). At the same time, it is easy to manipulate harmless images so that innocent citizens are falsely reported to the police. Overall, the study warns “that the current widespread deployment and use of PhotoDNA represent a significant and concerning threat, both for innocent users of these platforms and for victims of illegal content dissemination.”Digital freedom fighter and former Member of the European Parliament Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) commented on yesterday’s negotiation outcome:“Yesterday was a triumph for civil society. Digital privacy of correspondence lives on! We have stopped a broken and illegal system. Just as the postal service isn’t allowed to simply open our physical letters, the indiscriminate scanning of our private digital messages must remain strictly off-limits.The mass surveillance of our chats on US platforms has never made a significant contribution to rescuing abused children. Instead, it has criminalized thousands of teenagers and severely overloaded our police forces. If investigators are no longer drowning in a flood of false suspicion reports, resources will finally be freed up to hunt down organized abuse rings in a targeted and covert manner. That is what truly protects children.”The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed SpectacularlyThe track record of indiscriminate chat control is disastrous. The EU Commission’s evaluation report reads like an admission of complete failure:Data Giant Monopoly: Roughly 99% of all chat reports to police in Europe come from a single US tech corporation: Meta. US companies are acting as a private auxiliary police force—without effective European oversight.Massive Police Overload from Junk Data: Algorithms are blind to context and intent. The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) reports that—out of around 300,000 chats reported annually in the EU—a staggering 48% are false positives and criminally irrelevant. This flood of junk data ties up massive resources that are urgently needed for targeted, covert investigations into real abuse rings.Criminalization of Minors: In Germany, 40% of investigations target teenagers who thoughtlessly share images (e.g., consensual sexting) rather than organized predators.An Obsolete Model Due to Encryption: Perpetrators can easily switch to encrypted messengers, where chat control is already not applied. Because providers are increasingly transitioning to end-to-end encryption for private messages, the number of chats reported to the police has already dropped by 50% since 2022. Instead of investing in targeted investigative work, the EU Council is clinging to a dying surveillance model.Reversal of the Burden of Proof: According to the Commission’s report, there is no measurable correlation between the mass surveillance of private messages and actual convictions. Yet, the Commission and Council are demanding the extension of a measure whose effectiveness they themselves cannot prove, all while service providers admit to error rates of up to 20%.Failure in Child Protection: Mass scanning for previously known images does not stop ongoing abuse, nor does it rescue children who are currently in acute danger.The Way Forward: “Security by Design” Instead of Surveillance ManiaThe EU Parliament and EU member states are continuing negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (CSAR or Chat Control 2.0). While EU governments are once again demanding supposedly “voluntary” mass scans, the EU Parliament is championing a new approach: Platforms should be obliged to protect children directly through safe design (“Security by Design”). This includes requiring apps to technically prevent sexual approaches to children (grooming) through strict default settings and warning features. Furthermore, illegal material on the open web (and the darknet) must be actively tracked down and destroyed at the source via strict, immediate takedown obligations. There must be an end to law enforcement agencies, like Europol, declaring themselves “not responsible” for the removal of abuse material.Bought Fearmongering by the Lobbying MachineDuring the legislative process, lawmakers were pressured by the tech industry (DOT Europe) and certain child rights organizations (ECLAG), who jointly warned against the creation of “legal uncertainty.” This narrative is false. Phasing out indiscriminate Chat Control does not leave the police “blind.” The scanning of public posts and hosted files, as well as user-based reporting, remain fully permitted.Moreover, massive and questionable lobbying efforts have been exposed: The push for Chat Control is heavily driven by foreign-funded lobby groups and tech vendors. The US organization Thorn, which sells the exact type of scanning software in question, spends hundreds of thousands of euros lobbying in Brussels. The tech industry officially lobbied side-by-side with certain organizations for a law that does not protect children, but rather secures their own profits and data access.Patrick Breyer concludes:“Right up to the very end, the US tech industry and foreign-funded lobby groups tried to panic Europe. But flooding our police with false positives from mass surveillance doesn’t save a single child from abuse. Yesterday’s failed negotiations serve as a clear stop sign to this surveillance mania. Negotiators cannot ignore this verdict in the ongoing trilogue negotiations for a permanent regulation. Indiscriminate mass scanning of our private messages must finally give way to truly effective child protection that respects fundamental rights.”patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-ch…RE: digitalcourage.social/users/ec…
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2 Views
    Ternary RISC Processor Achieves Non-Binary Computing Via FPGAYou would be very hard pressed to find any sort of CPU or microcontroller in a commercial product that uses anything but binary to do its work. And yet, other options exist! Ternary computing involves using trits with three states instead of bits with two. It’s not popular, but there is now a design available for a ternary processor that you could potentially get your hands on.The device in question is called the 5500FP, as outlined in a research paper from [Claudio Lorenzo La Rosa.] Very few ternary processors exist, and little effort has ever been made to fabricate such a device in real silicon. However, [Claudio] explains that it’s entirely possible to implement a ternary logic processor based on RISC principles by using modern FPGA hardware. The impetus to do so is because of the perceived benefits of ternary computing—notably, that with three states, each “trit” can store more information than regular old binary “bits.” Beyond that, the use of a “balanced ternary” system, based on logical values of -1, 0 , and 1, allows storing both negative and positive numbers without a wasted sign bit, and allows numbers to be negated trivially simply by inverting all trits together.The research paper does a good job of outlining the basis of this method of computing, as well as the mode of operation of the 5500FP processor. For now, it’s a 24-trit device operating at a frequency of 20MHz, but the hope is that in future it would be possible to move to custom silicon to improve performance and capability. The hope is that further development of ternary computing hardware could lead to parts capable of higher information density and lower power consumption, both highly useful in this day and age where improvements to conventional processor designs are ever hard to find.Head over to the Ternary Computing website if you’re intrigued by the Ways of Three and want to learn more. We perhaps don’t expect ternary computing to take over any time soon, given the Soviets didn’t get far with it in the 1950s. Still, the concept exists and is fun to contemplate if you like the mental challenge. Maybe you can even start a rumor that the next iPhone is using an all-ternary processor and spread it across a few tech blogs before the week is out. Let us know how you get on.hackaday.com/2026/03/16/ternar…