The main issue, and this is also mentioned in the blog post, is that the bot only does translation and not localisation.

The first is just taking the words from one language and changing to another.

The second is to actually make sure the text in the new language makes proper sense. Maybe the English article uses some analogy that does realy make sense in the new language. Localisation is to find some other suitable analogy to use instead, so that the point from the main article is kept, but it still makes sense.

I do some volunteer work on localizing for Welsh and some Spanish. AI translations are hot garbage still even for the larger languages like Spanish. You can get a general idea of the intent most of the time, but that's about it. It's nowhere near good enough to replace humans with yet, definitely not good enough to overwrite what they've already translated.

As a translator, I have to say machine translations are really good if you just want to get the gist of things. If all you want is to understand 90% of what's written and you can live with the margin of error, then I'm not gonna try to convince you to hire me.

But if you need to understand 99.9% then a human is required because a machine just will not understand the nuance or have a larger context unless instructed. Localizing is another issue too, you'll have to take into consideration the cultural nuance of the target language. Localizing software is even more niche because you're often limited in character count for the source language which machines often misunderstand, and the same limitation for the target language that a machine may not account for.

tl;dr - hire me if you want good localization

I've never seen any machine translation that I would consider anywhere near good.

Now that you can have good translation by AI,

I see the bots are commenting on lemmy.