Poll: Should AI interpreting be allowed in courts?

Iulia Parvu wrote:

It should. The sooner it fails badly, the sooner we’ll stop thinking it should replace people.

Justin Peterson wrote:

Inevitably, the trend will be towards human-supervised interpretation and translation, in every area.

If anyone thinks only human beings alone, without any use of IA, will be translating and/or interpreting, in any context, in the coming years, they're just deceiving themselves.

AI is here, it's not going away, and will only become more powerful and more widespread.

Justin Peterson wrote:

No, I have not, but are you suggesting that because interpreting is complex and exhausting, the activity will be immune to transformation by AI?

I suspect just the opposite is true. Precisely because it is complex and exhausting, AI is bound to be implemented in the field, extensively, to lighten, expedite and facilitate the interpreter's task

Justin Peterson wrote:



No, I have not, but are you suggesting that because interpreting is complex and exhausting, the activity will be immune to transformation by AI?

I suspect just the opposite is true. Precisely because it is complex and exhausting, AI is bound to be implemented in the field, extensively, to lighten, expedite and facilitate the interpreter's task.

This is the same pattern followed by all revolutionary technologies, and translation/interpretation will be no different.

I am baffled at how my colleagues think we're somehow going to be immune to this, or that we should be.

I am reminded of the anecdotes of those in carriages who laughed at the first cars.

Justin Peterson wrote:

Inevitably, the trend will be towards human-supervised interpretation and translation, in every area.

If anyone thinks only human beings alone, without any use of IA, will be translating and/or interpreting, in any context, in the coming years, they're just deceiving themselves.

AI is here, it's not going away, and will only become more powerful and more widespread.

Given the vulnerabilities evidenced during the recent technology failure due to a global IT outage, replacing skilled humans with technology entirely is a decision fraught with risk, liability, and very real consequences.

Replacing certified human interpreters with a “certified technical device” raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy, impartiality, and clarity of interpreting in sensitive legal and administrative proceedings.

Effective interpretation requires more than just any form of translation; it requires accuracy and human oversight.

The use of technology in legal and administrative proceedings raises the issue of accountability. A human interpreter can be held liable for errors, but a technical device cannot. This lack of accountability for machine-generated errors poses significant risks to the fairness and integrity of proceedings.

Confidentiality
Machine translation and AI cannot reliably ensure the confidentiality required in such proceedings, posing risks under GDPR and other privacy laws.

Cultural Considerations
Cultural understanding and nonverbal communication are crucial in interpreting. Technology cannot adequately convey cultural nuances, body language, idiomatic expressions, and context-dependent meanings, leading to possible misinterpretations and subsequent harm and infringement of rights.

While advanced technologies can provide speed and convenience for such language services, they also raise concerns about accuracy, bias, and cultural sensitivity.

Imagine your child was abused at a daycare facility, and the only witness to the crime spoke Zapotec, an increasingly common language in the United States. Would you really want to entrust the translation of their testimony to an algorithm, when the future of your child and countless others rests in the balance?

AI is not capable of recognizing or rendering the important nuances of human language, nor can it make the cultural adjustments necessary to convey meaning effectively. It struggles with even some of the most basic, normal parts of our language, like accents, dialects, slang, and idioms. It cannot think, reason, or use basic logic, or understand nonverbal cues or cultural nuance. To date, the multilingual large language models (LLMs) that power AI exist for only a limited set of languages, primarily those used by large international organizations.

One such organization, the World Health Organization (WHO), recently conducted a study to evaluate whether a leading AI interpreting solution, Wordly, could be used to replace human interpreters at WHO meetings. The results were telling: out of 90 tests, only one received a “passing” grade, but it still contained errors that posed a reputational risk. For example, one test confused Hamas, the terrorist organization, with the U.S. The WHO concluded that AI interpreting is still in an experimental stage and is not fit for use in important meetings due to concerns with accuracy and reputational risk. This is especially telling because the WHO conducted these tests in its official languages, for which advanced LLMs do exist. Now imagine if only one person knows the language and no one else present can confirm that a translation is correct. Many commonly spoken languages in the U.S. are among the languages without large LLMs.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which trains judges, prosecutors, and other officers of the court, is unequivocal in its guidance on the use of AI to replace human interpreters: “AI should not be used to replace human interpreters for real-time spoken interpretation in court proceedings due to the high risks associated with context, nuance, and potential errors. Human oversight remains critical.”

The American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Language Access in Courts state plainly that, “Courts should use caution when considering any kind of machine [assisted] translation, as it has been found to be ‘unacceptably unreliable’ in its current format.”