Five Realities to Consider Before You Rely on It
It is a powerful feature, but it comes with several limitations and disadvantages. After checking it here are some of my thoughts for June 9th :
1. Accuracy as a time and energy saver.
Using such tools in a mixed cultural context can lead to misunderstanding. Let’s think about the depth of any language: idioms, jokes, or culturally nuanced expressions.
Heavy accents, unclear speech, or rapid talking can also reduce accuracy.
As I teach and train English for Specific Purposes I also see a potential problem with technical vocabulary: domain-specific language (medical, legal, technical) may be poorly translated or have different frame of reference in other languages.
And we as human beings all want to be heard and understood, aren’t we? 😉
2. The flow of the conversation is what creates a valuable meeting.
Let’s consider latency: there’s a delay between when the person speaks and when the translation appears.
Auto-Translate in Meetings? Amazing… Until It Isn’t.
3. Cognitive overload
Our brain has to process two streams of information—original speech heard in the background and translated one, it might cause mental fatigue and reduce overall comprehension.
4. Technology
How about meetings when the dependence on the Internet and hardware is limited?
The translation quality depends on a stable internet connection and good microphone input. ( I remember vividly the quality of meetings I ran 15 years ago and current ones, the difference is huge).
Nowadays, every now and then I still experience technical glitches, background noise, echo, or low-quality audio; they cause misinterpretation without fancy tools as well.
5. Last thought in our globalized society goes to privacy and security in terms of data processing: even though Google uses encrypted channels, some users or organizations may be uncomfortable with live speech being processed and transcribed by a third party.
