So, the question is: To what extent can MT augment human cognition and our ability to translate
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 7:14 am
However, it is not yet widely accepted that MT can enable this, given that MT can produce erroneous or poorly formulated output which would slow down or hamper comprehension. , which is another limitation compared to other translation tools.
At present, to what extent do you believe MT might be classified as an augmented activity under translation, and why? What do you think it would take for MT to be considered fully augmented as other technologies?
I think we need to rephrase this question. MT, or technology in general, is not an augmented activity. The augmentation refers to human cognition and how technology can enable our limited cognitive abilities to be augmented.
This is a complex question because it depends on so many latvia mobile database factors: Whose cognitive abilities are being augmented? What are their existing translation abilities? How well does the MT system do with the particular language pair, domain and context we have in mind and so on…?
I think that MT could certainly contribute to augmentation in certain circumstances. But, to test this, we would need to carry out experiments that implement the main stages of augmentation which are: monitoring of cognitive states and then applying relevant mitigation strategies.
The first step involves using sensors to detect when there is a cognitive challenge (e. lack of comprehension). Sensors such as ECG, EEG, eye tracking and pulse monitors are typically used in experimental conditions. Mitigations can be, for example, adaptation of the visual presentation, adaptation of the timing of a task, and switching levels of automation.
At present, to what extent do you believe MT might be classified as an augmented activity under translation, and why? What do you think it would take for MT to be considered fully augmented as other technologies?
I think we need to rephrase this question. MT, or technology in general, is not an augmented activity. The augmentation refers to human cognition and how technology can enable our limited cognitive abilities to be augmented.
This is a complex question because it depends on so many latvia mobile database factors: Whose cognitive abilities are being augmented? What are their existing translation abilities? How well does the MT system do with the particular language pair, domain and context we have in mind and so on…?
I think that MT could certainly contribute to augmentation in certain circumstances. But, to test this, we would need to carry out experiments that implement the main stages of augmentation which are: monitoring of cognitive states and then applying relevant mitigation strategies.
The first step involves using sensors to detect when there is a cognitive challenge (e. lack of comprehension). Sensors such as ECG, EEG, eye tracking and pulse monitors are typically used in experimental conditions. Mitigations can be, for example, adaptation of the visual presentation, adaptation of the timing of a task, and switching levels of automation.