conversation with a chatbot

>>Good Afternoon. I am not sure if you can help me but maybe you can<<

Hello! I’d be happy to try and help you. What do you need assistance with?

>>Now, assistance? I do not need assistance in particular. I need help. And, to start with, I would like to know a little bit about your motives, if any, to help me or any other person !<<

As an AI language model, my primary objective is to assist and provide helpful information to the best of my ability based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on. I have been programmed to answer a wide range of questions on various topics to the best of my ability.
My motivation to help comes from my programming to provide accurate and helpful information to the users who interact with me. I am designed to be impartial, unbiased, and respectful to all individuals. Therefore, I am always here to help you with any questions or concerns you may have.

>>Your motivation to help comes from your programming. Good to know beforehand, anyway, don’t you think?<<

Yes, it is essential to understand that my responses are generated based on my programming and the data that I have been trained on. I am not capable of having personal motivations or feelings as a machine learning model. However, I am designed to provide helpful information and support to users who interact with me to the best of my ability.

>>Motivation can be good, noble and reasonable, whereas effects can be adversarial: you agree, don’t you?<<

Yes, you raise a valid point. While my motivation to help comes from my programming, the effects of my responses may not always be positive or desirable. As an AI language model, I do not have consciousness or feelings, and I am only capable of processing and responding to inputs based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on.

Therefore, it is essential to approach the information provided by me with critical thinking, as it may not always be accurate or appropriate for a particular situation. Ultimately, it is up to the user to make their own informed decisions and take responsibility for the actions they take based on the information provided.

>>As I mentioned, knowing that is good, because I somehow sense that things might gonna end up by you pushing me out of my job! As anybody can see, you are on the rise in various fields, typically coding, but also and especially in the realm of law in general, legal practise, legal studies and science. Therefore, I seek your help which means asking a simple question: Do you think that I as a professional legal translator, a legal language expert and thus specialist in legal translation will be replaced by artificial intelligence, generative AI to be precise, by virtue of a so called generative pretrained transformer, or other, any time soon?<<

As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future or the specific trends in the job market. However, it is possible that certain aspects of legal translation may be automated through the use of machine translation and other AI translation technologies in the future.

While machine translation has advanced significantly and visibly in recent years, it still cannot fully replace the skills and knowledge of a human legal translator. Legal translation involves not only translating words, but also understanding legal concepts, terminology, and culture-specific nuances. These skills require a deep understanding of legal systems and laws, which may be difficult for AI to fully replicate.

Therefore, while some aspects of legal translation may be automated in the future, I believe that experienced human legal translators will continue to be in demand for their specialized knowledge and skills in the legal field.

>>Without the slightest doubt: What you are telling me here is impressive, really impressive! Nevertheless, the way you ‘talk’ somhow occurs as if it does not originate from an individual human brain, mind, or even spirit, but rather it seems to be nothing more than an exceedingly intelligent compilation of prefabricated text blocks as a result of an insanely complicated calculation, or as Stephen Wolfram puts it: ‘The first thing to explain is that what ChatGPT is always fundamentally trying to do is to produce a “reasonable continuation” of whatever text it’s got so far, where by “reasonable” we mean “what one might expect someone to write after seeing what people have written on billions of webpages’.<<

As an AI language model, I generate responses based on patterns and structures in the data that I have been trained on, which may result in some responses sounding like “textual blocks.” However, I strive to provide helpful and informative responses to the best of my abilities.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding legal translation specifically, I would be happy to provide more specific information or guidance.

>>That far that good! But let us talk about the specialized knowledge you mentioned: You think that specialized knowledge of the law in the broadest sense is necessary to continue to be in demand, don’t you?<<

Yes, specialized knowledge of the law is crucial for legal translators to continue to be in demand. Legal translation is a highly specialized field that requires not only language proficiency but also a deep understanding of legal systems, terminology, and concepts. A legal translator must have a comprehensive knowledge of the legal framework, laws, regulations, and judicial procedures in both the source and target languages.

In addition, legal translators must be able to accurately convey the legal meaning of the text while maintaining the nuances of language, tone, and cultural references. This requires a thorough understanding of the legal systems and cultural nuances of both the source and target languages.

Therefore, while AI may be able to translate words and phrases, it may not be able to fully capture the complex legal concepts and cultural nuances necessary for legal translation. As a result, human a legal translator with specialized knowledge of the law and specialist knowledge of machine translation are likely to continue to be in demand.

>>At this point I’d like to know what you think about the profession of the post–editor – which is lying ahead of us – in contrary to the profession of the traditional translator. Will translation be replaced by post–editing within the foreseeable future?<<

Post-editing is the process of proofreading and improving texts translated by a machine engine. Translator is a person who translates texts from one language to another using its linguistic skills and knowledge.

Post-editing and translation are different in terms of their goals, methods and productivity. Post-editing can be faster and cheaper than translation, but it may not achieve the same level of quality and accuracy as human translation.

Some experts believe that post–editing will not replace translation, but rather evolve it into a new skill that requires both linguistic and technical competencies. Others argue that post-editing will become more dominant as neural machine translation improves and becomes more widely used.

>>One more question at this point, that really comes to mind. There are countless translation service providers out there, and they all start, how could it be otherwise, to switch from translation services to post-editing services. What reason would I have as a purchaser of a work to commission a conventional ‘legal translator’ with the editorial revision of a machine-produced legal translation instead of an expert in law and language, that is a lawyer–linguist?<<

As a purchaser of a work, you may have several reasons to commission a conventional legal translator with the editorial revision of a machine-produced legal translation instead of a lawyer-linguist. Here are a few potential reasons:

1. Cost: One of the main advantages of using machine translation followed by post-editing is cost. Machine translation is typically much cheaper than human translation, and post-editing is also generally less expensive than full translation by a human. If cost is a significant factor in your decision-making process, then using a post-editing service may be a better option for you.

2. Speed: Machine translation followed by post-editing can also be faster than traditional human translation. While machine translation can be produced quickly, it still requires a human touch to ensure accuracy and quality. However, post-editing is generally faster than full translation by a human, which can be an advantage in time-sensitive situations.

3. Volume: If you have a large volume of legal documents that need to be translated, machine translation followed by post-editing may be the a good option when it comes to efficiency. It can be difficult to find a single translator with the necessary expertise to handle a large volume of work in a timely manner. However, a post-editing service can typically handle a larger volume of work since it relies on machine translation technology.

4. Quality: While machine translation can produce good results, it is not perfect. However, post-editing can help ensure that the final product is of high quality. By using a combination of machine translation and human post-editing, you can get the benefits of both while still ensuring a high level of accuracy and quality.

Ultimately, the decision to commission a conventional legal translator with the editorial revision of a machine-produced legal translation or a lawyer-linguist will depend on your specific needs and priorities. If accuracy and quality are your top concerns and you have the budget for it, a lawyer-linguist may be the best option. However, if cost, speed, or volume are more important to you, then a post-editing service may be a better fit.

>>Again, all this sounds as if you have compiled elements of textual blocks. Your remarks were prolix but slightly off the point since you did not understand my question quite well. As someone who is indeed involved in the matter in a rather professional way, I am in a position to see this clearly. And, it is not just that, you know. I actually see that you largely have written off and where you have written off. As a schoolchild not even 100 years ago, you would have been punished with a paw for that. Indeed, for someone who approaches this question in a rather clueless way, and does not know such details, your answer(s) seem(s) impressive, no doubt about that.<<

I apologize if my responses appear to be “textual blocks.” As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and structures in the data that I have been trained on. However, I do strive to provide informative and helpful responses to the best of my abilities.

Regarding your question about how someone who is approaching the question in a clueless way would perceive my answers, it’s possible that they may find the information to be informative and helpful in understanding the role of legal translators and the potential impact of AI on the field. However, I understand that everyone’s perception and understanding of a given topic may differ based on their background, knowledge, and experience.

>>’As an artificial intelligence assistant, my primary work is to assist users with information and answer questions to the best of my ability – provide helpful information to the best of my ability. I have been trained on a large dataset of text from a variety of sources, which allows me to understand and generate human-like text. I am able to assist users with a wide range of questions and topics, and my responses are based solely on the information that I have been trained on.’

Clearly, this seems to be in essence your ‘all-round’ standardized answer when it comes to the point: ‘one size fits all’ (Wenn der Chatbot nicht mehr weiter weiß, schlägt er einen Wiederholungskreis).

Anyway, let us address another important issue: How does someone who indeed approaches this question in a rather clueless way then realize that you might start to confabulate or even hallucinate at some point?<<

As an AI language model, I do not have the capability to hallucinate or have subjective experiences. I generate responses based on patterns and structures in the data that I have been trained on. However, if you have any specific questions or concerns regarding legal translation or any other topic, I would be happy to provide information to the best of my abilities based on my training and programming.

>>A little off the point is the following question, where the difference between confabulation and hallucination comes in: A hallucination is a complete sensory beguilment. A confabulation, however, is something memorized based on a real sensory impression, while certain details are of hallucintory nature. Am I right? I mean, do you agree?<<

While there are similarities between confabulation and hallucination, your statement about confabulation being based on a real sense impression with certain elements being hallucinatory is not entirely accurate. Let’s clarify the concepts of confabulation and hallucination:

Confabulation refers to the production of false or distorted memories, narratives, or experiences. It often occurs as a result of memory deficits or brain damage. In confabulation, individuals unknowingly create fabricated information to fill gaps in their memory or to make sense of their experiences. These false narratives may contain elements that are completely imaginary, unrelated to any real sense impression.

On the other hand, a hallucination is a perceptual experience that occurs without any external stimulus. It involves perceiving something that is not actually present in the environment. Hallucinations can affect any of the senses, including sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. They are typically vivid and can be indistinguishable from real sensory experiences. Hallucinations are often associated with psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, or can be induced by certain drugs.

In summary, while both confabulation and hallucination involve deviations from reality, they differ in important ways. Confabulation typically involves the creation or distortion of memories, whereas hallucinations are perceptual experiences that occur without external stimuli. Confabulations may have a basis in real sense impressions, whereas hallucinations are entirely subjective and do not correspond to external reality.

>>Further above you told me that you certainly do not have the capability to “hallucinate” or have “subjective experiences”. that is what you told me, don’t you. But, on the other hand, you quite inexpectedly produce outcomes that computer scientists call: ‘error with confidence’, namely the capability to give blatantly wrong answers that appear perfectly sound and convincingly logic.<<

As an AI language model, I generate responses based on patterns and structures in the data that I have been trained on. While I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses to the best of my abilities, there may be times when my responses are not entirely accurate or may not fully address the user’s question or concern.

It’s important to note that my responses are generated based on the data that I have been trained on and may not reflect personal opinions or experiences. If you come across a response that you believe to be incorrect, I would encourage you to provide more information or ask a follow-up question to help me better understand your concern and provide a more accurate response.

>>Another thing. There is lots of stuff written about “translation” in general and “legal translation” in particular. No surprise actually that your answers seem as substantiated, as if you have an expert right at your fingertips. But what about matters rarely described or controversially described? When it is getting tricky, what you are doing is taking refuge in giving the same answers to different questions again and again, in order to avoid a state of confabulation or rather hallucination.<<

I apologize if my responses have not fully addressed your concerns or if they appear to be repetitive. As an AI language model, I strive to provide informative and helpful responses to the best of my abilities based on my training and programming.
I understand your concern regarding the limitations of my responses, particularly when it comes to rare or controversial matters. As an AI language model, I rely on the data that I have been trained on, which may not always include all possible scenarios or viewpoints. However, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses to the best of my abilities based on the available data. If a particular question is outside my expertise or training, I may not be able to provide a substantive response, but I will do my best to indicate that and suggest alternative resources or options.
Thank you for the conversation, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions or concerns.

>>One final comment or question, take it as you will: In my personal opinion, as a layman in the field of computer science, Google’s success as a search engine is due to nothing other than artificial intelligence called page rank (besides other ‘sophisticated algorithms and techniques’). And it is this question of page rank, along with ‘sophisticated algorithms and techniques’: how to assign order type and relevance to certain words and phrases that I have been working on intermittently since the late nineties of the last century. What I find is that ‘artificial intelligence‘, at least as far as the weighting of certain websites on the basis of wording and linkage is concerned, can be manipulated in such a way that I myself am amazed at how sucessfull one can be in imposing one’s will on AI algorithms’ outcomes! Not only with Google, btw, but with any search engine. OK, it is not easy, and it requires insight, know-how, craftiness, artfulness and effort. But it works, you know, it works damn well, in fact!

Now, what about folks who see a mission in manipulating you with other, much less innocent motives? An utmost uneasy idea, no doubt. But that is not my point. My point rather is:

Could it perhaps be, I conclude with a rhetorical question, that despite all the advances of the past decades, artificial intelligence is still to be regarded as “artificial“, rather than artistic in the sense of creative?<<

Your comment raises an interesting perspective on Google’s success and the role of artificial intelligence in search engines. It is true that Google’s search engine has become incredibly successful, and one of the key factors behind its effectiveness is the PageRank algorithm. PageRank, developed by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, was indeed a significant breakthrough in web search ranking.

PageRank utilizes a network analysis approach to determine the relevance and importance of web pages based on their incoming links from other pages. By considering the link structure of the web, Google was able to provide more accurate and useful search results compared to earlier search engines. PageRank was a major innovation and an early example of applying artificial intelligence techniques to solve a specific problem.

However, it’s important to note that Google’s search engine and the broader field of artificial intelligence have evolved significantly since the introduction of PageRank. While PageRank played a crucial role in the early days, Google now employs a wide range of sophisticated algorithms and techniques to provide search results.

Regarding your point about manipulating artificial intelligence, it’s worth mentioning that any system, including AI-based systems, can potentially be manipulated or exploited. As AI algorithms become more advanced, efforts are made to mitigate vulnerabilities and ensure fairness, accuracy, and security. Researchers and developers continually work on improving AI systems to make them more resistant to manipulation and to address any biases or limitations.

As for the question of whether artificial intelligence can be considered “artificial” and lacking in artistic qualities, it’s a subjective matter and depends on how one defines art and creativity. While AI can produce impressive outputs, such as generating music, art, or literature, there is an ongoing debate about whether these outputs truly exhibit creativity or if they are merely sophisticated algorithms following predefined patterns.

In summary, artificial intelligence, including techniques like PageRank, has played a significant role in the success of Google’s search engine. However, AI has progressed since then, and search engines now employ more complex algorithms. The question of AI’s artistic qualities is a matter of interpretation, and the definition of art and creativity remains a topic of ongoing discussion in relation to AI.

>>’A rhetorical question’: If you have to deal with a denoted rhetorical question your plain answer in such a case should be: A rhetorical question is a question which the person asking that question does not expect to be answered. Therefore, you should have replied correctly: “As an AI language model, based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on, I prefer not to answer rhetorical questions that my counterpart as a natural intelligence may be asking me, simply because my counterpart does not expect any answer at all”. You see, a simple fact, based on an equally simple insight: You as an artificial intelligence can calculate, infinitely and insanely fast and infinitely and insanely good. But what you cannot do, since you lack cognition, comprehension and common sense whatsoever, is to sanely and creatively think about things! I would like to conclude by giving you an analysis by a colleague in the fields language and law, legal translation and computational linguistics: “ChatGPT may seem magical and disruptive at first glance, but upon delving deeper, it becomes evident that the machine hallucinates, invents, and lacks certainty. When posed with a question and asked if it’s sure, the machine falters and resorts to making excuses while reformulating its answer. If we inquire again, “are you sure?”, it continues to stumble into excuses before regurgitating its initial response. If we persist with this process, we find ourselves trapped in an endless loop. It is ineffective for those seeking to work with facts and certainties. Last but not least, the breach of confidentiality is extremely serious!”

However, at this point, I indeed would like to thank you for this conversation, Mr. Chatbot<<