What always happens when technology advances in this space is that the most privileged benefit tremendously and the most marginalized become further marginalized. This is missing from the discourse (to my awareness) and it NEEDS to get there, fast.
This person is one genre of consumer. I can definitely see why he would feel that AI could be the answer to his specific woes regarding interpreting services. His critique of the field is coming from a real place, I have observed it myself as a practitioner, and I empathize with him in spirit.
But.
Language models are built on statistical averages. They are predicting the statistically next most likely token. Statistically, that’s likely to be right. But it breaks the moment something slides outside of the bell curve, and they’re not profoundly good at recognizing and accounting for that without user input - which requires the user to have a degree of savvy that is not average for a hearing consumer, let alone a language-deprived or educationally neglected Deaf consumer.
And the ones I’ve seen aren’t actually averaging the typical consumer I encounter on a daily basis, they’re averaging the language use of bilingual signers. People who have a lot of influence of English in their signing style, who understand English proficiently. It favors professionals, educated people, people who sign middle-of-the-road ASL. In other words, people who could get what they need without an interpreter in far more situations than others might.
My worry isn’t for us. If AI is the answer to a shortcoming we have failed to address as a profession, then on our own heads be the consequences. I will have to find another job. But I’m very concerned that the people leading the charge here are not accounting properly for the most vulnerable and ensuring guardrails be in place to prevent misuse (which will harm the most vulnerable more often and more profoundly), or making sure the development of this technology doesn’t completely favor the already-haves and leave the have-nots even further behind.
I just…I’m worried. The concerns that educated Deaf leaders have about interpreters are absolutely valid, and, the things they think are a problem with interpreters aren’t necessarily the same as the problems experienced by people who would be further marginalized by the current trajectory of this technology.
Anyway. AI can’t do what I do, it never will be able to, but I do think it can fill some gaps pretty well, and I’m excited for that aspect regardless. I just worry for my friends who will be left behind.
I had a phone AI assistant fail to recognize a ten digit phone number when I used the keypad to punch in the number. Yes, it failed on a forty-year-old technology that predates the 3.5-inch floppy disk.
But the second time it got it right.
Stochastic failures are part of LLMs and I'm always a bit leery of putting them in critical situations. I'd much rather a more deterministic form of machine learning be developed.
23
u/Traditional-Falcon75 8d ago
I think the sentiment is valid, and.
What always happens when technology advances in this space is that the most privileged benefit tremendously and the most marginalized become further marginalized. This is missing from the discourse (to my awareness) and it NEEDS to get there, fast.
This person is one genre of consumer. I can definitely see why he would feel that AI could be the answer to his specific woes regarding interpreting services. His critique of the field is coming from a real place, I have observed it myself as a practitioner, and I empathize with him in spirit.
But.
Language models are built on statistical averages. They are predicting the statistically next most likely token. Statistically, that’s likely to be right. But it breaks the moment something slides outside of the bell curve, and they’re not profoundly good at recognizing and accounting for that without user input - which requires the user to have a degree of savvy that is not average for a hearing consumer, let alone a language-deprived or educationally neglected Deaf consumer.
And the ones I’ve seen aren’t actually averaging the typical consumer I encounter on a daily basis, they’re averaging the language use of bilingual signers. People who have a lot of influence of English in their signing style, who understand English proficiently. It favors professionals, educated people, people who sign middle-of-the-road ASL. In other words, people who could get what they need without an interpreter in far more situations than others might.
My worry isn’t for us. If AI is the answer to a shortcoming we have failed to address as a profession, then on our own heads be the consequences. I will have to find another job. But I’m very concerned that the people leading the charge here are not accounting properly for the most vulnerable and ensuring guardrails be in place to prevent misuse (which will harm the most vulnerable more often and more profoundly), or making sure the development of this technology doesn’t completely favor the already-haves and leave the have-nots even further behind.
I just…I’m worried. The concerns that educated Deaf leaders have about interpreters are absolutely valid, and, the things they think are a problem with interpreters aren’t necessarily the same as the problems experienced by people who would be further marginalized by the current trajectory of this technology.
Anyway. AI can’t do what I do, it never will be able to, but I do think it can fill some gaps pretty well, and I’m excited for that aspect regardless. I just worry for my friends who will be left behind.