Why was the comment of the author of the translation-site that explains the methodology flagged / dead?

The mere fact that the translation was AI-assisted shouldn't be a reason to flag a comment. AI translations, especially supervised translations, can actually achieve a reasonable level of quality.

Disagreement on AI philosophy shouldn't be a reason to flag a contribution.

▲

sweisman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A professional book editor and Hebrew translator said the translation of the one work he checked out was "impressive".

Others have responded equally positively to the Latin translations.

AI as a panacea is overwrought, but there are genuine positive uses of it. Would critics rather have NO translations of these pivotal works?

▲

NetOpWibby 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, because if a human didn’t do it, how will we know of the translation is free of mistakes? /s

	▲	sweisman 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Professional translators don't throw around the word "impressive" like that. You don't, yet I still stand by my work. I translated some books up to four times as I refined the process. The default behavior is repeatedly to not attempt to translate text it can't resolve for whatever reason. AIs do have a tendency to hallucinate, and I expended a lot of effort on minimizing this problem to the point it can be considered mitigated.

▲

kensai an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"Disagreement on AI philosophy shouldn't be a reason to flag a contribution."

Amen!