| ▲ | NicuCalcea 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||
The doctor would be responsible for the accuracy of their translation tool, something they can't verify but you expect them to use? | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lacunary an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
"what you see is all there is." it's generally much easier to verify something you've been made aware of than it is to know of it in the first place (and still verify it.) | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rvnx 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
What's the alternative then ? -> You are in China, you go to emergency, nobody speaks your language Move hands ? DeepSeek is better than using hands, even Baidu Translate, ChatGPT or whatever you find. Other solutions are theoretically nice on paper but almost delusional. An imperfect solution is better than no solution. == Similarly, a deaf-person is theorically better with a certified interpreter that can talk with the hands, but they may prefer voice-recognition software or AI tools. (or... talking with hands is more confusing and annoying or less understandable for them). Of course ChatGPT transcription can have issues, but that's the difference between the real-world and Silicon Valley's disconnected lawyers world. == If ChatGPT says: "sorry I won't be able, please go to see a licensed interpreter, good luck!" then it's just OpenAI trying to save their asses, at your risk/expense. If you have a choice, you can make the choice, and you can double-check what is said. In other cases, you have no choice, nothing to check, only problems but no hints of solutions. This is why openness is important. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||