‍

This is a chronicle. Analysis and opinions are the author's own.

‍

During Almedalen Week, politicians, experts and decision-makers gather to discuss the challenges and opportunities of the future. A highly topical issue is the exponential development of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on various professional fields. In the language industry, an ever-recurring question is whether interpreters and translators can be replaced by AI. Personally, I am convinced that the role of interpreter will change over time, but that it cannot and should not be fully replaced by technology.

Don't get me wrong — my basic attitude towards technological development is very positive. Smart solutions make more services available to more people, democratizing opportunities for greater equality. Developments in AI mean that language services can be used faster, cheaper and more efficiently, especially in situations where you would not otherwise hire an interpreter or translator. This results in more contexts in which people can more easily understand and make themselves understood.

However, I see major limitations in fully replacing interpreters for several reasons. One is that the situations in which an interpreter is used are when it is of utmost importance that it becomes correct, for example in legal or medical contexts. Interpretation is about much more than just converting words from one language to another. It is also about context understanding, cultural awareness and the ability to adapt to different situations. While AI can do that to some extent, human interpreters are trained in understanding nuances and interpreting nonverbal cues that can be crucial in conveying the right message. Here, the interpreter often wears many different hats and acts not only translator, but also fellow human in difficult situations -- an emotional intelligence that an AI solution cannot or should not replicate.

Here, the interpreter often wears many different hats and acts not only translator, but also fellow human in difficult situations -- an emotional intelligence that an AI solution cannot or should not replicate.

Furthermore, it should be mentioned that AI solutions are not immune to technical errors or mistakes. Although solutions like ChatGPT provide convincing answers, it should be remembered that the answers are based on huge amounts of data that are impossible for publishing companies (in this case OpenAI) to quality-secure from misinformation. In contexts where an interpreter is used, it is of utmost importance that it be correct, as it can be life-defining context. This begs the question: who is responsible if there is an error when using an AI interpreter in such a context?

In conclusion, I have a positive view of technological developments and believe that as a result, more organisations will use interpreting services more widely. I also believe that more solutions will be developed that further streamline and improve the interpreting profession, but that the human interpreter cannot and should not be replaced.