I find that meta’s translations are very poor compared to others, at least for relatively obscure languages, which I figured was relevant considering the article.
Google Translate is a good default, but LLMs are really good at translations, as they’re better capable at understanding context and providing culturally appropriate translations.
Hello from Siem Reap, Cambodia! Awesome to see a fellow tech enthusiast from Cambodia.
I actually found Facebook’s translations pretty good (better than Google Translate for things longer than a sentence). From my understanding of Khmer, Khmer is a bit more verbose and context dependent, hence LLMs in Khmer would be a big help understand those nuances.
In the inverse case (LLMs generating khmer from English) I heard from locals that it sounds formal and “robotic” which I found quite interesting.
So, LLMs are noticeably better in Khmer than Google Translate? I wonder why Google Translate doesn't use Gemini under-the-hood. Perhaps it's more prone to hallucinations.
I'm interested in find some thorough testing of translations on different LLMs vs Translation APIs.
There's a dropdown on Google Translate that lets you choose "Advanced" mode or "Classic" mode. Advanced mode uses Gemini but it's only available for select languages.
I'll be looking at this in detail. I've started a company to do similar things, https://6k.ai
I'm currently concentrating on better data gathering for low-resource languages.
When you look in detail at data like Common Crawl, finepdfs, and fineweb, (1) they are really lacking quality data sources if you know where to look, and (2) the sources they have are not processed "finely" enough (e.g. finepdfs classify each page of PDF as having a specific language, where-as many language learning sources have language pairs, etc.
Yes, there are government datasets, languge "acadamies" (or "regulators") - organizations focused on preserving / teaching the language, and often smaller, local publishers that publish material in their local language.
I'm living in Guatemala, so have been focusing on the Mayan languages here (22 languages, millions of speakers).
As an aside, I remember visiting Guatemala (in the border area near Chiapas) in the early 90s and discovering that “Mayan” was not the monolith that I had been led to believe by my culturally narrow American education, but was a diverse collection of related cultures with multiple languages.
In one of the villages we visited, there was a language school where foreigners were learning Jacalteco. One student was from Israel and where most of the students had vocabulary lists in three columns (Jacalteco - Spanish - English), his had four columns where he did one more step of translation to Hebrew.
I haven't seen anywhere claiming they are open weight (although their last similar model, NLLB was).
They say their leaderboard and evaluation datasets are freely available. Closest statement I've seen in the paper, "Our translation models are built on top of
freely available models."
Meta released No Language Left Behind (NLLB) [1], I think in 2022. I wonder why this in not "NLLB 2.0"? These companies love introducing new names to confuse things
That's a high count, but still a bit away from "Omni". Usual count is between 4k and 8k depending the source. But the first 1k might be the hardest, certainly.
Off topic, since the AI craze MS‘ documentation translation has ridiculous errors like translating try catch keywords to "versuchen" and "fangen" for German pages
I’m very wary of celebrating Meta’s language work when the company was credibly found to have contributed to the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and separately, to human rights abuses against Tigrayans during the conflict in northern Ethiopia. Be careful whose sins you’re laundering.