Comment by _heimdall

> That footnote does make me question the bilingual reporter's skills in both languages though. If the reporter needs an LLM to help translate they could easily be missing subtle mistranslations.

I've done my fair share of translating as a bilingual person and having an LLM to do a first pass at translation saves TON of time. I don't "need" LLM, but it's definitely a helpful tool.

> If they are going to take the time to review it and have enough experience in both languages to verify the translation, why use the LLM for it at all?

People generally read (and make minor edits if necessary) much faster than they can write.

If using LLM can shorten the time reporter needs to rewrite the whole article again in the language the reporter is fluent but take effort to write, why not?

This will give the reporter more time to work on more articles, and we as a foreigner to Korea, getting more authentic Korean news that is reviewed by Korean and not be Google Translate.

    > If the reporter needs an LLM to help translate they could easily be missing subtle mistranslations.

You raise an interesting point about "missing subtle mistranslations". Consider the stakes for this article: This highly factual news reporting. There are unlikely to be complex or subtle grammar. However, if translating an interview, this stakes are higher, as people use many idiomatic expressions when speaking their native language. Thinking deeper: The highest stakes (culturally) that I can think of is translating novels. They are full of subtle meanings.

The reporter does not need the LLM, but it's often faster to review/edit a machine translation than doing the whole translation by yourself

> It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor.

Two different editors.

But as others mentioned, this is helpful even for the same editor to do.