Machine translation will not replace human translators.

Artificial intelligence and its derived machine translation are used

extensively in the field of translation. The primary objective is to alleviate

some of the difficulties and reduce working hours. Secondly, in life, the

convenience of machine translation to daily is increasing with the

development of artificial intelligence. Especially in the translation sector,

which requires a lot of manual mental and physical operation, machine

translation is increasingly being prioritized by companies in the Internet

age with the advantage of short-term efficiency. Machine translation has

so many applications that some translators are worried that manual

translation will eventually be replaced by it. As a result, the question of

whether human translation will be replaced by machine translation is part

of the rapid development of artificial intelligence society. This argument

provides a clear and logical idea for practitioners and managers in the

field of translation. Therefore, the essay argues that in the short term

machine translation cannot replace manual translation. In the long term,

machine translation is more of a facilitator of manual translation to ensure

that the translation task is completed efficiently.

Opponents, more in the field of artificial intelligence and foreign trade

industry managers generally believe that machine translation offers far

more value for money than manual translation in terms of the need for

extensive translation. Slocum (1985, p. 109–16) mentioned that the

purpose of translation was direct information acquisition and

dissemination. This enables industry managers to choose fast and

inexpensive means of translation"machine translation, taking into account

that the reader facing the translation text can understand the required

information even when receiving low-quality translations. In addition, the

economic cost of translation has become an area of concern for

1
opponents. Reducing the cost of manual translation is a constant concern

of opponents in the process of artificial intelligence development.

However, opponents ignore the limitations of the field where machine

translation is suitable for a large number of applications. The quality of

translation is inferior to the characteristics of manual translation, which

makes this application unsuitable in highly sophisticated external fields,

especially in the cross-border trade of the software industry. Furthermore,

post-translation editing is an integral part of the translation process. Liu et

al. (2022) point out that engineers of machine translation are keen to

pursue more accurate and natural translation outputs. Although

improvements have been made, they still contain omissions, additions,

and mistranslations. Therefore, post-translation editing of machine-

generated translation outputs remains inevitable to ensure accurate

translation between the two languages. Most people report that machine

translation tools are not customized to their needs. Half of the participants

were not satisfied with the quality, and some even commented that the

accessible machine translation tools were of low or poor quality.

Translation students have also made comments such as "low accuracy"

and "less reliable." Previous research also found that there is a direct

correlation between end-user education and dissatisfaction with machine

translation quality. This directly leads to an increase in the amount of post-

translation edits to improve the quality of translation, which is the reason

for the increase in translation costs.

Other opponents claim that the computer level of translators is one of the

factors affecting the efficiency of manual translation. It was noted that few

translators collaborate with their work-wide corpora, suggesting that the

use of programming software to speed up productivity is less common in

manual translation. (Zaretskaya, Pastor and Seghiri, 2018) . Because

2
translators generally consider it too time-consuming and are unfamiliar

with these special tools to reduce the difficulty of translation tasks. By

contrast, a designed and developed, easy-to-use program is easier for

managers to manage and improve the efficiency of relevant translations.

However, opponents do not take into account that most areas requiring

translation do not require precision and a certain level of computer

sophistication. Translators are used more places in everyday life and social

processes. Zhu (2018, pp. 101-109) believes that manual translation

cannot be replaced because machines cannot effectively identify the use

of statements and ethical issues in a particular place. Schairer (1996, pp.

96–107) also supports machine translation because of its inability to

distinguish the use of languages in different cultural contexts, resulting in

communication problems during translation and even cultural conflicts of

varying degrees. In general, machine translation is not directly linked to

the computer level of the translator. Li, F. (2023, p. 3039) points noting

that in more cases translators are more willing to use machine translation

as an aid. Auxiliary is the main category of machine translation at this

stage, and the labor behind it cannot be replaced. In the current

translation environment, machine translation output still needs to

objectively assess post-translation editing in the process, usually still

needs translators to determine whether the output provided by the

machine translation system is worth post-translation editing, or whether

the translation is faster from scratch. However, it takes time and effort for

post-translation editors to make this decision. So having a system that

pre-evaluates the suitability of machine translation will be more cost-

effective by predicting post-translation editing.

As technology progressed, some opponents began to question the quality

of manual translation. Artificial is considered to have subjective

3
characteristics and too many personal factors influence, so the machine

translation 100% neutral attitude and objectivity is identified as the way to

reduce translation errors in translation situations. At this point, some

voices gradually question the reasonableness of human translation. True,

Lehrberger and Bourbeau (1988) noted that machine translation lacks

critical critical thinking, which cannot rely on software design and

technical iterations to equate machine translation with manual translation.

In serious translation situations such as diplomacy, the occasion of

translation is particularly important. Understanding the appropriateness of

language and re-organizing the application becomes the necessary skills

for translation, i.e., on-site capabilities. At this stage, it is impossible to

add human-specific thinking patterns to the software and programs that

underpin machine translation. It means in a crucial occasion or

atmosphere. The criteria for choosing the appropriate translation word and

word order are in the hands of the translator. In contrast, the critical

thinking of manual translation is not possible by updating the iteration of

machine translation.

In conclusion, this essay argues that machine translation is no substitute

for manual translation. The use of machine translation first increases the

workload of post-translation editing, thereby reducing translation

efficiency. Today's translation environment requires more critical thinking

from translators, but machine translation as a non-human cannot acquire

an equal amount of thinking by updating the software system. In addition,

the development and maintenance of software and hardware that support

machine translation requires more economic spending than manual

translation, and there are certain risks. The manager of the translation

market should establish the relationship between the translator and

machine translation after clarifying the scope of the translation. As

4
technology develops, the field of translation will gradually move to

machine translation more widely as an auxiliary tool to help improve the

efficiency of manual translation. In no way is manual translation replaced

by machine translation.

Reference:

[Link], K., Kwok, H. L., Liu, J., & Cheung, A. K. F. (2022). ‘Sustainability and

influence of machine translation: Perceptions and attitudes of translation

instructors and learners in Hong Kong’, Sustainability, 14(6399), 1-29.

Available at: [Link] (Accessed: 10 March

2024).

[Link], J. and Bourbeau, L. (1988) Machine Translation : Linguistic

Characteristics of MT Systems and General Methodology of Evaluation.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co (Linguisticae Investigationes.

Supplementa). Available at: [Link]

[Link]/[Link]?

direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=360949&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 10 March

2024).

[Link], F. (2023) ‘A Survey of Translation Learners’ Uses and Perceptions of

Neural Machine Translation’, Theory and Practice in Language Studies,

13(11), p. 3039. doi:10.17507/tpls.1311.34.

[Link], J. (1985) “Machine Translation.” Computers and the Humanities

19, no. 2 .109–16. Available at: [Link]

(Accessed: 10 March 2024).

[Link], K. (1996) “Can Computer Translation Replace Human

Translation?” Hispania 79, no. 1: 96–107. [Link]

(Accessed: 10 March 2024).

5
[Link], A., Pastor, G. C., & Seghiri, M. (2015). Translators'

requirements for translation technologies: A user survey. Retrieved March

10, 2019, from [Link] (Accessed: 10 March 2024).

[Link], C. (2018). “The machine to replace human beings as a translator?”

A discussion of the relationship between science and humanity in the

cultivation of translators and interpreters. Foreign Language and

Literature, 34(3), 101-109.

Word count: 1162