Which is to say that there are edge cases like legal texts or other fields where a high level of domain expertise is needed to interpret and translate text. Which most human translators would also not have.
For almost everything else, it seems to produce pretty decent and usable translations, even when used against relatively obscure languages.
I used it a some green landic article that was posted on hn yesterday (about Greenland having gotten rid of daylight saving time). I don't speak a word of that language but the resulting English translation looked like it matched the topic and generally read like correct and sensible English. I can't vouch for the correctness obviously. But I could not spot any weird errors or strange formulations that e.g. Google translate suffers from. That matches my earlier experience trying to get chat gpt to answer in some Dutch dialects, Frysian, Latin, and a few other more obscure outputs. It does all of that. Getting it to use pirate speak is actually quite funny.
The reason that I used Chat GPT for this is that Google translate does not understand greenlandic. Understandable because there are only a few tens of thousands of native speakers of that language and presumably there's not a very large amount of training material in that language.
Therein lies the rub. There's a huge gap between what LLMs can currently do (spit back something in a target language that gives you the basic idea, however awkwardly phrased, of what was said in the source language). And what is actually needed for idiomatic, reasonably error-free translation.
By "reasonably error-free" I mean, say, requiring a human correction for less than 5 percent of all sentences. Current LLMs are nowhere near that level, even for resource-rich language pairs.
I've tried it between English and Dutch (which is my native language). It's pretty fluent, makes less grammar mistakes than google translate and seems to generally get the gist of the meaning across. It's not a pure syntactical translation. Which is why it can work even between some really obscure language pairs. Or indeed programming languages. Where it goes wrong is when it misunderstands context. It's not an AGI and may not pick up on all the subtleties. But it's generally pretty good.
I ran the abstract of this article through chat gpt. Flawless translation as far as I can see. To be fair, Google translate also did a decent job. Here's the chat GPT translation.
Veel NLP-toepassingen vereisen handmatige gegevensannotaties voor verschillende taken, met name om classificatoren te trainen of de prestaties van ongesuperviseerde modellen te evalueren. Afhankelijk van de omvang en complexiteit van de taken kunnen deze worden uitgevoerd door crowd-werkers op platforms zoals MTurk, evenals getrainde annotatoren, zoals onderzoeksassistenten. Met behulp van een steekproef van 2.382 tweets laten we zien dat ChatGPT beter presteert dan crowd-werkers voor verschillende annotatietaken, waaronder relevantie, standpunt, onderwerpen en frames detectie. Specifiek is de zero-shot nauwkeurigheid van ChatGPT hoger dan die van crowd-werkers voor vier van de vijf taken, terwijl de intercoder overeenkomst van ChatGPT hoger is dan die van zowel crowd-werkers als getrainde annotatoren voor alle taken. Bovendien is de per-annotatiekosten van ChatGPT minder dan $0.003, ongeveer twintig keer goedkoper dan MTurk. Deze resultaten tonen het potentieel van grote taalmodellen om de efficiëntie van tekstclassificatie drastisch te verhogen.
Translating the Dutch back to English using Google translate (to rule out model bias) you get something that is very close to the original that is still correct:
Many NLP applications require manual data annotations for various tasks, especially to train classifiers or evaluate the performance of unsupervised models. Depending on the size and complexity of the tasks, these can be performed by crowd workers on platforms such as MTurk, as well as trained annotators, such as research assistants. Using a sample of 2,382 tweets, we show that ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for several annotation tasks, including relevance, point of view, topics, and frames detection. Specifically, ChatGPT's zero-shot accuracy is higher than crowd workers for four of the five tasks, while ChatGPT's intercoder agreement is higher than both crowd workers and trained annotators for all tasks. In addition, ChatGPT's per-annotation cost is less than $0.003, about twenty times cheaper than MTurk. These results show the potential of large language models to dramatically increase the efficiency of text classification.
I'm sure there are edge cases where you can argue the merits of some of the translations but it's generally pretty good and usable.
Thanks for counter-example; I'll confess to having spent far too much time with edge-case translations of late (on languages a bit farther apart), rather than on more generic cases like the above.
I will be re-assessing my view on general-case translation performance accordingly.
For almost everything else, it seems to produce pretty decent and usable translations, even when used against relatively obscure languages.
I used it a some green landic article that was posted on hn yesterday (about Greenland having gotten rid of daylight saving time). I don't speak a word of that language but the resulting English translation looked like it matched the topic and generally read like correct and sensible English. I can't vouch for the correctness obviously. But I could not spot any weird errors or strange formulations that e.g. Google translate suffers from. That matches my earlier experience trying to get chat gpt to answer in some Dutch dialects, Frysian, Latin, and a few other more obscure outputs. It does all of that. Getting it to use pirate speak is actually quite funny.
The reason that I used Chat GPT for this is that Google translate does not understand greenlandic. Understandable because there are only a few tens of thousands of native speakers of that language and presumably there's not a very large amount of training material in that language.