> If 99% lets me understand the gist of an idea

The very first example in the article was one where GT gets the words mostly right, but completely misses the point.

And if you miss the point, then the original text hasn't been translated. It's merely been decoded, this is the entire point of the article. Calling what GT does "translation" is wrong.

Yes, there's absolutely value in decoding signs and texts and simple phrases and directions. It allows you to go to a foreign country and get around without speaking the native language. Great. But a phrasebook can do the exact same thing, except it doesn't claim breakthrough AI machine-consciousness bla bla bla.

I'm not as good with words as Hofstadter, so here's his words from the end of the article that summarizes the problem quite nicely:

"I’ve recently seen bar graphs made by technophiles that claim to represent the “quality” of translations done by humans and by computers, and these graphs depict the latest translation engines as being within striking distance of human-level translation. To me, however, such quantification of the unquantifiable reeks of pseudoscience, or, if you prefer, of nerds trying to mathematize things whose intangible, subtle, artistic nature eludes them. To my mind, Google Translate’s output today ranges all the way from excellent to grotesque, but I can’t quantify my feelings about it. Think of my first example involving “his” and “her” items. The idealess program got nearly all the words right, but despite that slight success, it totally missed the point. How, in such a case, should one “quantify” the quality of the job? The use of scientific-looking bar graphs to represent translation quality is simply an abuse of the external trappings of science."

One more thing:

> [Google Translate] allows you to go to a foreign country and get around without speaking the native language. Great. But a phrasebook can do the exact same thing, except it doesn't claim breakthrough AI machine-consciousness

Wait, who is talking about consciousness? That's a different deal, and let me assure you I'm as skeptical as you appear to be. AI is a buzzword here, don't let it distract you from the effectiveness of the actual techniques.

Also, it stands to reason portable automated translation like your phone can do is not something a phrasebook can do. I can point to a random sign, take a picture of it and have Google Translate give me a helpful if quirky translation. I definitely cannot pull out a phrasebook and hope something matches what I'm seeing in the sign; it will take ages. So it's at least more convenient.

In fact, I've done this with Japanese instructions to assemble a scale model. Granted, here the problem domain was very constrained, and I already sort of guessed what I was trying to do -- and yet, Google Translate was orders of magnitude more helpful than flipping through a phrasebook. Would it be as helpful if I was in completely uncharted waters, where I can make fewer guesses? Probably not. Still, very impressive.

Sure, the example from the article gets mangled in a way that loses all meaning. Yet the author calls it "a trap" for a reason. I stand by my assertion that I'll take the 99% of cases. Yes, they'll have some hilariously funny mistranslations, but they'll be useful anyway in most cases.