> But yes, you can find a few exercises where humans still outperform Google Translate. They're mostly unfair (humans outperform the AI because they have side-channel information available, e.g. what events happened outside of the content of the actual translation. A good test would exclude that and then humans are 100% left behind, but in the press ...)
That's an very reductionist view on translation. I'm of opposite opinion that it requires human-level intelligence to translation anything but the simple and dry texts. Translators of literary texts are no less authors than the actual writers.
> Poker - humans beat.
AIs beat humans only in simplest variant of poker - heads-up (two players). In the more complex ones, AIs are nowhere near humans.
That's an very reductionist view on translation. I'm of opposite opinion that it requires human-level intelligence to translation anything but the simple and dry texts. Translators of literary texts are no less authors than the actual writers.
> Poker - humans beat.
AIs beat humans only in simplest variant of poker - heads-up (two players). In the more complex ones, AIs are nowhere near humans.