Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude 3 beats Google Translate

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#41

Post by ImHereToVote »

dartos wrote: post #20
ImHereToVote wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Translate simply doesn't use a GPU for translation. It's as easy as that. There is a huge jump in cost associated with using the GPU.

What are you even talking about? You don’t just “use a gpu.” Software doesnt get better by magically throwing it at a gpu. Moreover you can’t just run any old software on a gpu, it has to be built for it. Even then, the gpu is just a speed increase, not a magical make better box. That’s like saying any random text editor would be a better translator if they ran on GPUs. EDIT: google also literally builds its own acce…

No... I mean LLM's use a GPU. Hence why the cost is different.

Changing Google Translate to use an LLM would become much more expensive for Google.

This is why you see a different cost structure for using "AI". LLM's can't realistically use the CPU for anything serious.

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#42

Post by snapcaster »

londons_explore wrote: post #24
snapcaster wrote: post #5

Yeah this is old news. When i was in China last year google translate seemed to literally never work (looks of confusion trying to do basic interactions in stores). GPT-4 worked perfectly every time, I think google translate might be another soft abandoned project from google

> I think google translate might be another soft abandoned project from google There are 100+ people working on Google translate and associated stuff (the mobile apps, the serverside stuff, etc). I guess they're all asleep.

Yeah I guess so? I don't work there no explanation for why it's unuseably bad for one of the most popular languages in the world

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#43

Post by Kuinox »

maven29 wrote: post #18

People trust Google Translate to not go off-topic or "hallucinate" and there is still a lot of value in something semi-deterministic like that. (Edit: To clarify, maintaining semantics is held sacrosanct in classical methods of machine translation)

Google Translate use recent neural net tech, and does hallucinate translations, since years ago. Translating from french to english, sometimes it miss the translations by a lot just because an accent is missing.

Stop dissing technology based on your belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Neural_Machine_Translat...

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#44

Post by endisneigh »

Kuinox wrote: post #43
maven29 wrote: post #18

People trust Google Translate to not go off-topic or "hallucinate" and there is still a lot of value in something semi-deterministic like that. (Edit: To clarify, maintaining semantics is held sacrosanct in classical methods of machine translation)

Google Translate use recent neural net tech, and does hallucinate translations, since years ago. Translating from french to english, sometimes it miss the translations by a lot just because an accent is missing. Stop dissing technology based on your belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Neural_Machine_Translat...

I’m curious do you have a reproducible example of this?

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#45

Post by Hakkin »

sunaookami wrote: post #4

DeepL already beat Google Translate years ago.

DeepL has its moments but it also has many many failure cases. It particularly is very bad with long text blocks, it commonly completely misses sections of text or repeats the same block of text multiple times.

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#46

Post by CuriouslyC »

jsheard wrote: post #35
frabcus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPT 3.5 API is cheaper than Google Translate. And in our testing (over a year ago) was better for translation. So I assume in that case the energy use is less?

Isn't OpenAI still operating at a loss? You can't infer much from an API bring cheaper if it's being subsidised.

GPT4 on the web is at a loss, $20/mo doesn't cover it unless someone's a rare user. GPT4 through API is not at a loss, and I doubt GPT3.5 is at a loss either.

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#47

Post by zurfer »

paxys wrote: post #34
deepvibrations wrote: post #26

Pretty much all LLMs easily beat Google Translate, this is not news... One of the best yet unplanned features of them imo.

It's not unplanned. The transformer architecture was literally created for better language translation.

It's fair to point that out, but the "plan" right now is to build AGI that is able to do a ton of things. Current frontier models are not optimized to be best in class translators, they just happen to be really good at that as well.

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#49

Post by endisneigh »

famouswaffles wrote: post #40
maven29 wrote: post #18

People trust Google Translate to not go off-topic or "hallucinate" and there is still a lot of value in something semi-deterministic like that. (Edit: To clarify, maintaining semantics is held sacrosanct in classical methods of machine translation)

>People trust Google Translate to not go off-topic or "hallucinate" Then "people" have no idea what they're doing. Google Translate and Deepl "hallucinate" way more than the likes of GPT-4 and Claude 3 for Translation.

I’m fascinated by this since I use translate regularly. Do you have an example of google translate doing this?

Re: Claude 3 beats Google Translate

#50

Post by endisneigh »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #46
jsheard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't OpenAI still operating at a loss? You can't infer much from an API bring cheaper if it's being subsidised.

GPT4 on the web is at a loss, $20/mo doesn't cover it unless someone's a rare user. GPT4 through API is not at a loss, and I doubt GPT3.5 is at a loss either.

These assertions are based off of what?
Post reply on HN