阅读理解
Wouldn't it be wonderful to travel to a foreign country without having to worry about the headache of communicating in a different language?
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, technology policy expert Alec Ross argued that, within a decade or so, we'll be able to communicate with one another via small earpieces with built-in microphones. That's because technological progress is extremely rapid. It's only a matter of time. Indeed, some parents are so convinced that this technology is imminent that they're wondering if their kids should even learn a second language.
It's true that an increase in the quantity and accuracy of the data loaded into computers will make them cleverer at translating “No es bueno dormir mucho” as “It's not good to sleep too much.” Replacing a word with its equivalent (同义词) in the target language is actually the “easy part” of a translator's job. But even this seems to be a discouraging task for computers.
It's so difficult for computers because translation doesn't—or shouldn't—involve simply translating words, sentences or paragraphs. Rather, it's about translating meaning. And in order to infer meaning from a specific expression, humans have to interpret a mass of information at the same time.
Think about all the related clues that go into understanding an expression: volume, gesture, situation, and even your culture. All are likely to convey as much meaning as the words you use.
Therefore, we should be very skeptical of a machine that is unable to interpret the world around us. If people from different cultures can offend each other without realizing it, how can we expect a machine to do better? Unless engineers actually find a way to breathe a soul into a computer, undoubtedly when it comes to conveying and interpreting meaning using a natural language, a machine will never fully take our place.
