You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on Open thread, Mar. 23 - Mar. 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: MrMind 23 March 2015 08:38AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (181)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 29 March 2015 08:47:38PM 0 points [-]

What year do you put the change in google translate? It didn't switch to neural nets until 2012, right? Did anyone notice the change? My memory is that it was dramatically better than babelfish in 2007, let alone 2010.

Comment author: gwern 30 March 2015 12:05:29AM *  0 points [-]

Good question... I know that Google Translate began as a pretty bad outsourced translator (SYSTRAN) because I had a lot of trouble figuring out when Translate first came out for my Google survival analysis, and it began being upgraded and expanded almost constantly from ~2002 onwards. The 2007 switch was supposedly from the company SYSTRAN to an internal system, but what does that mean? SYSTRAN is a proprietary company which could be using anything it wants internally, and admits it's a hybrid system. The 2006 beta just calls it statistics and machine learning, with no details about what this means. Google Scholar's no help here either - hits are swamped by research papers mentioning Translate, and a few more recent hits about the neural networks used in various recent Google mobile-oriented services like speech or image recognition.

So... I have no idea. Highly unlikely to predate their internal translator in 2006, anyway, but could be your 2012 date.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 30 March 2015 02:24:51AM *  0 points [-]

Here is a 2007 paper that I found when I was writing the above. I don't remember how I found it, or why I think it representative, though.