SENTENCE-BY-SENTENCE COMMENTARY
E21 Winner
Scott Wilson
Gifu Prefecture
Sentence One
昆虫の場合、生きるという目的を達成する（維持し続ける）ために、外界からの入力情報に対して、予めもち合わせている行動系列のうち、どの系列を発動させるのかのルールに従って行動選択をしているだけであろう（ルール自体も生まれながらにもっている）。
Take insects for example. They accomplish (and maintain) their goal of surviving by simply selecting behaviors from a pool of innate behavioral sequences, following rules that activate certain sequences in response to input from external stimuli. (These rules themselves also being something that the insects are born with.)
Positive:
Like Robin and Catherine, Scott captures the reader’s attention with “take insects for example” for “昆虫の場合” by presenting the topic up front and starting to divide up an otherwise long and meandering sentence.
The two major clauses of the first sentence appear in the same order in the same order as the Japanese, in very natural English.
Scott also retains the parenthetical expressions of the original Japanese which contributes to reproducing the cadence of the Japanese text. ["accomplish (and maintain)"].
Scott also used the word “goal” instead of “purpose.” The English word “goal” is the author’s term and seems to go better with task completion.
Concern(s):
“following rules that activate certain sequences in response to input from external stimuli” should probably be “following rules on which behaviors to activate in response to.” The rules don’t activate the behaviors.
Unfortunately, the rendering of the second parenthetical expression is wordy.
Sentence 2
よって、 触覚などのセンサーからの入力情報に対する行動ルールに基づく振る舞いであることから、 極めて自動に近い自律性をもつ生物であると見ることができる。
For that reason, due to their actions being based on behavioral rules that respond to input from their tactile sensors, we can see them as an organism whose level of autonomy is extremely close to automatic.
Positive:
The meaning of the sentence is conveyed to the reader, and, importantly, “autonomy” and “automatic” are distinguished as two separate characteristics.
Concern(s):
“due to” is hackneyed.
The translation is overly literal in reproducing every word of “極めて自動に近い自律性をもつ生物であると見ることができる This is another case where the Japanese language uses “the subject is a thing which has/is/does, where English speakers would say “subject has/is/does”. Alternative: we can consider the autonomy of these organisms as being extremely close to automatic.”
Better not to omit “など” here, e.g., “tactile and other sensors”
Adding “being” would make clearer “whose level of autonomy is extremely close to [being] automatic.”
Sentence 3 and 4
これに対して、人の場合で あっても目的は「生きること」であることは昆虫と同じである。われわれは普段の日常生活 において何か行動する際、生きるために〇〇をする、という意識をいだくようなことはなく、 空腹だから食べる行動を発動させ、怒られるのがイヤだから宿題をするのであり、人と会う ために移動するのである。
Now, humans also have the same goal of "survival" as insects, but whenever we do something in our daily lives, we're not consciously thinking that we're doing it to survive. Rather, we're taking steps to eat when we're hungry, or doing homework to not get yelled at, or relocating somewhere to meet up with someone.
Comment:
Almost all of the contestants avoided carrying the double marus into English in some form or another (“we do x”).
This sentence contains a trap with “in contrast, the goal is the same.” Japanese writers can use devices such as “これに対して” to introduce contrast without actually mentioning the contrast until much later. In fact, the contrast only emerges slowly over the course of the article.
The use of “Now” draws the reader’s attention to the coming change in the direction of the discussion.
This translation combined the general statement of the fourth sentence with the third sentence to show the contrast in humans’ goal of survival and immediate reaction to visceral or emotional urges. Scott then stated the three examples of that behavior in the fourth Japanese sentence as a separate English sentence. This reads well. The translation of “not to get yelled at” suits the informal, conversational tone of “怒られるのがイヤだ” and the entire passage especially well. Several contestants chose to use “scolded” here which sounds overly prim, like something out of Sunday school class, in comparison to the overall tone of the article. “To meet up with someone” also captured the informal tone of the passage, but the use of “relocate” paid too much attention to “移動” which just indicates going or any kind of movement (“we go places to meet people” might be a very natural rendition). A certain argument can be made for bulldozing the second half of the fourth sentence to make the three clauses parallel.
Sentence 5
しかし、元を正せばすべては生きるためであり、生きるという目 的を達成するために、状況に応じて適切と思われる行動を選択し続けているシステムという意味では昆虫も人も同じであろう。
However, the base impetus behind all of these behaviors is survival. Both humans and insects alike accomplish their goal of surviving through a system of responding to their surroundings and choosing appropriate behaviors.
Positive:
The “base impetus behind all of the behaviors” read well, although base wasn’t the most creative and accurate translation of “元を正せば” in the contest. E21 also divided the sentence in two which reads well.
Concern(s):
However, here Scott said that organisms respond to their environments “through a system.” In this passage, the entire organism or and device seem to be the system whose goal is survival. (The device/organism is the system that selects/performs behaviors.)
Sentence 6
違いは、外界からの情報に対して発動する振る舞いの 種類が圧倒的に多いことと、外界からの情報に対してどの振る舞いを発動させるのか、の関係も極めて複雑であるところにある。
The difference lies in the fact that humans have an overwhelming amount of possible actions that can be taken in response to external stimuli, and the links between those actions and which are activated in response are extremely complex.
Comment:
In Sentence 6 the first big difference between humans is stated clearly, but the second difference contains a serious error.
The second half is of this sentence is tricky because the “に対して” of “外界からの情報に対して” serves to indicate that the system is behaving in response to external information and ends up also serving as the “and” in the relationship between “a” and “b”. This ambivalence is perfectly manifested in another translation: “The relationship between which behaviour is triggered in response to information from the outside world is extremely complex.” Literally, the other translation is saying “the relationship between “a” (behaviour) and no “b” [no other party in the relationship].
Many people worked around this construction and some others deftly converted the original syntax into English.
However, Scott said “the links between those actions and which are activated … are extremely complex”. The structure of this clause faithfully recreates the original Japanese, but there are three problems. It should read “the links between this information and which actions are activated (which behaviors are performed.)” Somehow Scott put “actions” where “information” should be, (links between the behaviors chosen and the information) and in “those actions and which are activated” “which” technically refers to which behavior, but is hard to understand. Also, in this passage, the use of “behavior” is probably almost always preferable to the use of “action.” Everybody here is selecting and performing behaviors.
Another trivial but unfortunate misstep is that is sentence is not stated as a comparative. One of the definitions of “圧倒的に” is “他より非常に勝っているさま”, i.e., the thing in question is overwhelming superior to another thing.
Sentence 7 and 8
外界に対する反応の仕方が巧妙になればなるほど環 境への適応度が高まり生存確率が増す。
The better an organism responds to stimuli, the more its environmental fitness and chances of survival increase, and while insects can only respond through instinctive behavioral rules, we humans are capable of not only dynamically changing how we respond, but also dynamically increasing the variation of possible actions themselves. This is done by applying experience and knowledge that we've accumulated from being taught by others, or that we've discovered on our own.
Positive:
Dictionary definitions of words containing 妙 might be confusing, and the words themselves, 奇妙に, might not map directly to English words. 巧妙 is glossed as “clever, ingenious, artful, adroit.” Scott’s choice of “better” for “微妙に” is bland, but better than a stilted translation. “adept” by other contestants might be the best choice.
Scott changed the sequence of the last two-thirds of Sentence 8 to a more English-like order, and divided it in two, conveying the original meaning in pleasant English.
Concern(s):
Once again, this article is amazingly free of technical jargon and accessible to lay readers. In that respect, the use of “environmental fitness” conveys the idea, but not the original tone of the article.
“while” serves as a transition word to the English ear and the English would still flow nicely starting Sentence 8 with “While.”
Unfortunately, Scott did not use the word “learn(ing)” since learning is an important part of artificial intelligence, a branch of machine learning where the author drives the idea of learning home by mentioning it twice in the artful beautiful parallel construction of “われわれは教えられることによる学習や、自ら経験することで学習を通して”.
However, once again, this article is amazingly free of technical jargon and accessible to lay readers. In that respect, the use of “environmental fitness” doesn’t reflect the original tone of the article.
Sentence 9
目的達成のため、いろいろな振る舞 いを試したり、新たな振る舞いを獲得したりできる能力をもつシステムこそが自律性があ る、と呼べるのではないだろうか。
We could even say that this is the heart of an autonomous system: one with the ability to test out a variety of actions and acquire new ones in order to accomplish goals.
Concern(s):
This translation conveys the meaning adequately, but is wordy. We all know what “こそ” and “と呼べるのではないだろうか” but conveying them succinctly is another matter.
“at the heart of” is overwrought.
Sentence 10
この考え方に基づけば、ルンバや AIBO はいかにも意志をもっているように見えるが、自動機械であり、大雑把に見れば昆虫もこれに含まれるものの、学習する動物などは自律性をもつシステムということになる。
Based on this line of thinking, while Roomba vacuum cleaners and AIBO robot dogs may appear to have a consciousness of their own, they are automated machines. Broadly speaking, insects also fall under that definition, but any being that is capable of learning can be said to have a system of autonomy.
Positive:
This translation is pleasant to read and does not mislead the reader from the author’s argument.
The Roomba and AIBO are identified, but Roombas would probably not need to be identified for an American audience.
“they are automated machines” is striking to the reader and grammatically correct, unlike some other contest translations.
Insects are placed in the correct category. (In some translations, robots are placed with insects – the category is correct but the actors’ roles are switched.)
Concern(s):
What is a good translation of “意志をもって”? It suggests “consciousness” but doesn’t specifically mean that. “These devices have a will of their own” is the idea, as ROBIN translated. Given what Roombas and AIBOs are doing here, “意志をもって” might be translated “appear to act on their own.”
robot dogs – “robot” should be the adjective “robotic.”
have a system of autonomy – Once again, the entire device is probably the system.
Sentence 11
この自律性が次世代の AI、すなわち、真に人と共生する AI の実現においては極めて重要なのであるが、これは機械学習とは異なる AI 技術である。
This autonomy is extremely important in the implementation of the next generation of AI — AI that will actually coexist alongside humans — but is also AI technology that is separate from machine learning.
Positive:
This rare example of a clear Japanese sentence is expressed with equal clarity in English.
Putting a subject after the “but” might have increased readability.
Concern(s):
Translating “共生” as “coexist” doesn’t lead the read too far astray. However, the author may actually mean “symbiosis.”
The major conclusion of this article, supported by an illustration, is that symbiotic computing with autonomous AI will eventually unlock mankind’s creative potential, resulting in Humanity 2.0, a new more evolved iteration of mankind (we, in our present state, are Humanity 1.0).
Sentence 12
そして、特に米中に大きく研究 開発において遅れをとってしまっている機械学習分野と異なり、自律性や汎用性について は現時点では日本が立ち後れているという状況にはないと認識しており、今後の AI 研究開 発において日本が確固たる立ち位置を確保できる可能性はあると考えている。
While Japan is particularly lagging greatly behind the U.S. and China in terms of research and development in that field, at present I have identified that there is no such lag when it comes to autonomy and versatility, and I believe that it is possible for Japan to secure a solid position in future AI research and development.
Comment about text:
The screeners pointed out that this passage proved particular difficult to many contestants.
It doesn’t help that the subject is not mentioned until the second clause.
Positive:
Scott followed the tortuous grammar correctly and produced clear English that is not unpleasant to read.
“secure a solid position,” chosen by several contestants, sounds particularly good and is absolutely faithful to the original.
Scott accounted for “認識しており” and “考えている.” There didn’t seem to be much agreement about the subjects of these verbs or the meaning of “認識しており” among contestants who appeared to be native Japanese speakers. Some NJSs edited both phrases out. “identified” is probably not right.
Concern(s):
Saying “that” instead of “machine learning” in the first clause is taxing to the reader.
“認識しており” may indicate something like “we know/are aware” and hardly needs to be translated.
Sentence 13
もちろん、自律型 AI の研究開発は日本だけが注目しているわけではなく、機械学習に対 するフェイク問題と同じ関係にて、自律型 AI 技術に対しては LAWS（致死型自律 AI 兵器） 問題が指摘されるように、自律型 AI の研究開発も世界的にアクティブに進められている。
Naturally, Japan is not the only country with its eye on the research and development of autonomous AI. Progress is actively being made all over the world in this field, and as we've seen before with the issue of deep fakes arising along with machine learning, such has the issue of LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems) been identified along with autonomous AI technology.
Comment about text:
Even given the different sequence of elements in a Japanese sentence, the way that the author introduces the problem of LAWS in this sentence seems like a major digression from the previous narrative of the passage unless there is a close connection between “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている.”.
Many contestants struggled connecting the phrases “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている.”
One contestant connected the two by saying something like “research is actively being pursued as evidenced by the concern over LAWS”. This is certainly satisfying to the English reader.
Positive:
The individual clauses of this long sentence are clearly stated for the most part.
Identifies “フェイク問題” as “deepfakes.”
The connection of “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている” suggests that concerns about LAWS, as with deepfakes before, is evidence of progress in the field.
Concern(s):
Something like “focused on” might be better than “have an eye on” (“watch attentively) for 注目.
“such has the issue” appears to be a typo for “so has the issue”
Sentence 14
文字通り、自律型 AI を搭載した兵器が、自らの判断で最後のトリガーを引く兵器の開発である。
As the name implies, this is the development of weapons equipped with autonomous AI that uses its own judgment when deciding to pull the final trigger.
Positive:
Translating “文字通り” as “as the name implies” rather than as “literally.”
Concern(s):
It might be better here to take some license and just say “LAWS are….” and to combine “final” with decision, since “final trigger” isn’t that common an expression, especially as relates to literal triggers in weaponry.
Sentence 15
残念ながら数カ国にて開発が行われており、すでに実用化のレベルに到達した兵器も存在している。
Unfortunately LAWS are currently being developed in many countries, and some weapons have already reached the stage of implementation.
Positive:
Clearly written and almost completely accurate. Use of “some weapons.”
Concern(s):
数カ国 = several countries
Sentence 16
国連において、LAWS 禁止に向けた取り組みも行われているが、そもそも言語道断である戦争において、さらに言語道断である「機械が人の命を絶つ」ということが現 実とならないため、まさに人類の知恵が試されている状況にある[3]。
Initiatives to ban LAWS are being taken at the United Nations, but preventing a future where war — already monstrous enough — becomes even more monstrous through machines being the ones that decide who lives and dies, rests on humanity's judgment.
Comment about text: A major challenge of this sentence is to reproduce the sequence of “unspeakable war” first and “unspeakable machines” second.
Positive:
The sequence “war” and “machines” is retained.
Scott conveys the autonomy of LAWS with the free translation of “machines being the ones that decide who lives and dies.”
Concern(s):
The author seems to be referring to war in general, not a future war.
The most straight-forward gloss of “命を絶つ” is “to kill.”
“知恵”: more like “knowledge” and “wisdom” than “judgment.”
“rests on humanity’s judgment” doesn’t obscure the general meaning of the text. However, the literal meaning of “preventing… will test humanity’s wisdom/knowledge” has a strong impact on the reader.
All forms of “take initiative” seem to mean “to be the first one to do something.”
E07 Robin Griffin
Washington (State)
Robin’s translation was also excellent. It contained many of the best translations of individual words or expressions (“boils down to”) and many of the clearest sentences. So, ranking the contestants was very difficult. However, there were a few places that may have left the reader a little confused.
Sentence 1
昆虫の場合、生きるという目的を達成する（維持し続ける）ために、外界からの入力情報 に対して、予めもち合わせている行動系列のうち、どの系列を発動させるのかのルールに従 って行動選択をしているだけであろう（ルール自体も生まれながらにもっている）。
Consider an insect, for example. An insect’s goal is to live (or to keep living). To achieve this goal, the insect is equipped with a series of action patterns to respond to external data. Determining which action the insect takes is simply a matter of following a set of rules that are innate to that insect.
Positive:
Like Scott, Robin uses the construction “consider an insect” to focus attention on the topic and begin dividing up this rather long sentence.
Retains the first parenthetical expression, but streamlines the overall sentence into three crisp, concise, statements, dealing with each idea in the order presented in Japanese.
Uses “live” and “goal.”
Concern(s):
This article is written in scrupulously lay language and “action patterns” sounds somewhat technical.
It is probably better to use the plural form a “humans” and “insects” because the author refers to “we humans” and humanity (a group of humans) will eventually evolve into the utopian Humanity 2.0 in symbiosis with autonomous computing.
Sentence 2
よって、 触覚などのセンサーからの入力情報に対する行動ルールに基づく振る舞いであることから、 極めて自動に近い自律性をもつ生物であると見ることができる。
Its behavior, then, is the product of rules that take tactile and other sensory information as its input. The insect can thus be seen as an autonomous, quite nearly automatic living organism.
Positive:
Again, excellent syntax with two clear statements. Recasting of the first clause, although liberal, doesn’t obscure the intended meaning and there is no clear English equivalent for “に対する” here.
Concern(s):
The reader is left confused by “can thus be seen as an autonomous, quite nearly automatic living organism.” Here, “autonomous” and “automatic” sound like different degrees of the same characteristic.
Sentence 3
これに対して、人の場合であっても目的は「生きること」であることは昆虫と同じである。
In that respect, a human’s goal of living is similar to that of an insect.
Positive:
Again, a clear direct statement.
No scare quotes.
Concern(s):
The antecedent of “In that respect” is unclear enough to affect the reader unconsciously. Somewhere deep in the reader’s subconscious it may seem like a human’s goal is similar in that humans are quite nearly automatic.
“similar:” Humans’ goal seems to be exactly the same.
Sentence 4
われわれは普段の日常生活 において何か行動する際、生きるために〇〇をする、という意識をいだくようなことはなく、 空腹だから食べる行動を発動させ、怒られるのがイヤだから宿題をするのであり、人と会うために移動するのである。
While our actions in our daily routine may not be consciously motivated by a goal to live, we are compelled to perform actions such as eating when we are hungry, doing our homework to avoid being scolded, and traveling to meet with others.
Positive:
The English is once again clear. Any liberties with grammar or agreement here don’t affect the reader’s understanding of the author’s intent.
Concern(s):
“Compelled” might be a bit stronger than the Japanese, but is not entirely out of place here.
“a goal to live” or “the goal to live”. Articles are always a problem in J-E translation. “The goal” definitely lets the reader know that this is the goal we’ve been talking about all along. “A goal” can be thought of as “one of those goals of living every wo/man, beast and machine is pursuing.”
Robin, like Scott, provided too much for “移動.” It seems to be just “to go” somewhere (go places to meet people).
Sentence 5
しかし、元を正せばすべては生きるためであり、生きるという目 的を達成するために、状況に応じて適切と思われる行動を選択し続けているシステムという意味では昆虫も人も同じであろう。
Indeed, the human and insect are similar in that their actions can be boiled down to the desire to live, and in order to do so are equipped with a perpetual system that chooses what is considered to be the most apt course of action for a given situation.
Positive:
Once again, Robin packs together a number of different clauses into clear English.
“can be boiled down” is perhaps the best rendition of “元を正せば” in the contest and fits the colloquial nature of the text.
Apt use of “apt,” also perhaps the best translation among the finalists.
Concern(s):
It would be more striking if humans and insects were the same.
I think that they are the systems, rather being equipped with the systems.
“Continuously choose” might be better than “perpetual system,” which sounds conspicuously out of place in this article. On the other hand, there is a certain Rube Goldberg element to these systems, and the phrase “perpetual system” fits with that.
Sentence 6
違いは、外界からの情報に対して発動する振る舞いの 種類が圧倒的に多いことと、外界からの情報に対してどの振る舞いを発動させるのか、の関係も極めて複雑であるところにある。
Their difference lies in the fact that we as humans have an overwhelming array of potential actions with which to respond to external information and determining which course of action to take can be incredibly complicated.
Positive:
Excellent English again.
Robin’s translation of “外界からの情報に対してどの振る舞いを発動させるのか、の関係も極めて複雑であるところ” raises an interesting question. “関係” is overused to meaningless in Japanese.
The English statement is true, but how important is it to mention the relationship between the outside information and determining the behavior? Is the author just saying “determining [発動させるのか] is complicated”? This rendition also omits the second occurrence of “外界からの情報に,” which can easily be assumed in the reader’s mind.
Concern(s):
The statement probably should be comparative.
Sentence 7
外界に対する反応の仕方が巧妙になればなるほど環 境への適応度が高まり生存確率が増す。
The more adept we are in reacting to the outside world, the greater our adaptability and survivability in a given environment becomes.
Comment: Excellent overall, especially the use of “adept”, but “chance/probability of survival” might have been more in line with the overall tone of the article.
Sentence 8
昆虫は予め生得的な行動ルールに基づく反応しか できないが、われわれは教えられることによる学習や、自ら経験することで学習を通して、 蓄えた経験・知識を活用することで、反応の仕方自体を動的に変更するだけでなく、振る舞 いのバリエーション自体も動的に増やすことができる。
While the insect is limited to responses based on an innate set of rules and actions, we are able to learn from instruction and experience; we then use our accumulated experience and knowledge to not only dynamically change our response system, but to also expand our repertoire of potential behavioral responses.
Comment:
Robin retains the Japanese order of the clauses, using clear English. ROBIN also uses “learn,” a crucial term in machine learning. However, after viewing the first instance of “仕方” (in the previous sentence) as essentially having a adverbial function or, Robin translates “仕方” as “system,” when “how we respond” might be closer to the Japanese. (This is just another instance of the many Japanese nouns and pronouns whose English equivalents function as adverbs.)
Use of “repertoire” is suitable and adept.
Sentence 9
目的達成のため、いろいろな振る舞 いを試したり、新たな振る舞いを獲得したりできる能力をもつシステムこそが自律性がある、と呼べるのではないだろうか。
Such a system that is capable of trying and acquiring different or new behavioral responses is what we could call autonomous.
Comment:
Concise, but some emphasis such as “is exactly what we could call” would have reflected the Japanese.
Sentence 10
この考え方に基づけば、ルンバや AIBO はいかにも意志をもっているように見えるが、自動機械であり、大雑把に見れば昆虫もこれに含まれるものの、学習する動物などは自律性をもつシステムということになる。
Based on this, one might consider Roomba vacuums or AIBO robotic dogs to have a will of their own. These automated machines, however, might be roughly categorized closer to the insect rather than autonomous animals that are capable of learning.
Positive:
The English is again excellent overall. Roombas and AIBOs are identified in natural English, and “automated machines” is grammatically correct. “have a will of their own” also sounds natural and doesn’t translate “意志” as consciousness.
Concern(s):
The “など” after animals might not be a throwaway here, since machines are capable of learning in the author’s universe.
Machines are classified with insects when it’s actually the other way around, but everybody is in the correct category.
Omission of “system:” Here, humans, insects, and R2D2s are systems selecting and performing behaviors to get by.
Sentence 11 and 12
この自律性が次世代の AI、すなわち、真に人と共生する AI の実現においては極めて重要なのであるが、これは機械学習とは異なる AI 技術である。そして、特に米中に大きく研究 開発において遅れをとってしまっている機械学習分野と異なり、自律性や汎用性について は現時点では日本が立ち後れているという状況にはないと認識しており、今後の AI 研究開 発において日本が確固たる立ち位置を確保できる可能性はあると考えている。
This principle of autonomy is vital in the next generation of AI development — that is, for AI that can truly coexist with human beings. Such AI technology is distinct from machine learning, an area of research and development in which Japan has fallen behind that of the US and China. However, when it comes to autonomy and versatility in AI, rather than lagging behind, Japan has the potential to stand at the forefront of future AI research and development.
Positive:
Robin combined the second clause of Sentence 11 with the first clause of Sentence 12. This works logically and avoids redundancy since both concern machine learning.
The rest of Sentence 12 is clear and concise and retains the conversation style of the article.
Robin chose not to translate “認識しており” and “考えている.” This may not be a bad decision as “認識しており” refers to an unattributed and unverified fact and “考えている” refers to speculation, so the author’s (and his group’s) responsibility for these statements can be assumed.
Concern(s):
The translation of these sentences do not lead the reader astray. Sentence 11 is so brief that there may be an urge to flesh it out somehow. However, “the principle of autonomy” doesn’t really reflect the idea of the “[feature/characteristic/capability of autonomy.” “Development” (causing to become more advanced) is not the same as “implementation” (to put into effect or use).
“Japan has the potential to stand at the forefront of future AI research and development” is an excellent turn of phrase that does not mislead the reader from the author’s intent, but the more literal version given by others is grittier and sounds more like this will result in making money.
Sentence 13
もちろん、自律型 AI の研究開発は日本だけが注目しているわけではなく、機械学習に対 するフェイク問題と同じ関係にて、自律型 AI 技術に対しては LAWS（致死型自律 AI 兵器） 問題が指摘されるように、自律型 AI の研究開発も世界的にアクティブに進められている。
Of course, autonomous AI research and development is not just garnering attention in Japan, but is actively progressing worldwide. Similar to discussions surrounding the problematic use of machine learning in producing deepfakes, many are denouncing the use of autonomous AI technology in lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS).
Comment:
Robin extracts a nice topic sentence and spells out the details later. “Garnering attention” is a good expression.
There is no explicit connection between “問題が指摘されるように” and “研究開発も…進められている,” but the elements of the sentence seem to form a cohesive whole.
“Denouncing” is a little extreme, but takes the reader in the same direction as the “全体の中から、欠点や過失などを取り出して指し示すこと” definition of 指摘.
Sentence 14
文字通り、自律型 AI を搭載した兵器が、自らの判断で最後のトリガーを引く兵器の開発である。
As the name suggests, these are weapons equipped with autonomous AI that determines when to pull the trigger on its own.
Comment:
Excellent, especially the use of “determines … on its own.” However, omitted “final” (decision).
Sentence 15
残念ながら数カ国にて開発が行われており、すでに実用化のレベルに到達した兵器も存在している。
Unfortunately, several countries are currently developing such weapons, and some have already reached the level of practical use.
Comment:
Good
Sentence 16
国連において、LAWS 禁止に向けた取り組みも行われているが、そもそも言語道断である戦争において、さらに言語道断である「機械が人の命を絶つ」ということが現 実とならないため、まさに人類の知恵が試されている状況にある[3]。
Though there are ongoing efforts in the UN to ban LAWS, whether these inexcusable machines capable of ending human lives become a reality in an already senseless war will surely be a test of humanity’s intelligence.
Comment:
Excellent overall translation, but “though” did really draw my attention, and the author seems to be talking about war in general. It might be good to leave in footnote numbers.
E26 Finalist
Ayami Kan
Nishinomiya
Overall, Ayami’s translation was accurate and extremely pleasant to read. However, there was a high number of usage errors (usage errors are only a problem when they sound ‘weird’ to the reader) and the register of the English was a bit too high.
Sentence One
昆虫の場合、生きるという目的を達成する（維持し続ける）ために、外界からの入力情報に対して、予めもち合わせている行動系列のうち、どの系列を発動させるのかのルールに従って行動選択をしているだけであろう（ルール自体も生まれながらにもっている）。
In the case of insects, their action appears to be based on a set of behavioral rules they follow in order to survive. These rules dictate an insect’s behavior in response to information from the external environment. Both these behavioral sequences and rules are innate to insects.
Positive:
The three English sentences are clear and pleasant to read and don’t stray far from the intended meaning. The feeling of the last parenthetical expression is retained.
Concern(s):
“action” singular doesn’t convey the sense of behavior. The omission of selecting behaviors from a list of possible behaviors deprives the reader of the imagery of the process inside the insect’s brain.
Sentence 2
よって、 触覚などのセンサーからの入力情報に対する行動ルールに基づく振る舞いであることから、 極めて自動に近い自律性をもつ生物であると見ることができる。
This suggests that insects can be regarded as autonomous creatures that function in a similar manner to automatic systems; their response is determined according to behavioral rules, informed by their sensory input, such as tactile sense.
Positive:
“This suggests” is a good translation of “よって…見ることができる”
The difference between autonomy and being automatic is clear.
Although the first clause is recast with a degree of freedom, Ayami avoids using the English word “behavior” twice and accounts for “に対する” with “in response to”.
Concern(s):
“sensory input, such as tactile sense” strikes the ear like an agreement problem.
Sentence 3
これに対して、人の場合で あっても目的は「生きること」であることは昆虫と同じである。
Yet, even humans are the same of insects in that they share the ultimate purpose of ‘survival’.
Positive:
Ayami adroitly handles the tricky transition of “in contrast … is the same.”
Concern(s):
Uses “purpose” instead of “goal”.
“even humans” is more of a Japanese expression.
Usage error with “are the same of insects.”
Sentence 4
われわれは普段の日常生活 において何か行動する際、生きるために〇〇をする、という意識をいだくようなことはなく、 空腹だから食べる行動を発動させ、怒られるのがイヤだから宿題をするのであり、人と会うために移動するのである。
Generally, we are not conscious of our purpose for ‘survival’ in everyday life. Rather, we are driven to act because of hunger, to finish homework because of our aversion to scoldings, and to make an effort to move because of our desire to meet people. Ultimately though, all these behaviors are for the purpose of ‘survival’.
Comment:
“our purpose for ‘survival’” is a usage error.
The tone of the actions we take is too refined. The Japanese portrays the actions on a more visceral level and in plainer language. “Eating” is omitted in this version.
“to make an effort to move because of our desire to meet people” has a certain charm, but sounds like we humans are basically unmotivated to see other people.
Sentence 5
しかし、元を正せばすべては生きるためであり、生きるという目 的を達成するために、状況に応じて適切と思われる行動を選択し続けているシステムという意味では昆虫も人も同じであろう。
Ultimately though, all these behaviors are for the purpose of ‘survival’. In this sense, insects and humans can be considered analogous systems, continuously selecting what is considered the appropriate behavior for a given situation in order to survive.
Positive:
“Ultimately” works for “元を正せば,” but “get to the bottom of” or “it all boils down to” as in Robin’s translation, reflects the tone better.
“In this sense,” is a great transition phrase here.
Correctly identifies the entire device/organism as the system.
Finally uses “select.”
Concern(s):
The register of “analogous systems” is too high. (The author judiciously avoids big words)
Sentence 6
違いは、外界からの情報に対して発動する振る舞いの 種類が圧倒的に多いことと、外界からの情報に対してどの振る舞いを発動させるのか、の関係も極めて複雑であるところにある。
One difference between humans and insects is that humans possess a wider variety of behaviors that can be activated in response to incoming information from the external environment; the link between this information and the action activated is also extremely complicated for humans.
Positive:
Ayami framed this as a comparative.
The translation of “the link…” accounts for all of the Japanese while still being palatable in English, with “and the action activated” accounts for “させるのか”.
Concern(s):
An article might be better than “one [difference].” Omitted “圧倒的に” (this is a really big difference). The use of a semicolon makes it seem like the one difference ends at the semicolon.
Sentence 7
外界に対する反応の仕方が巧妙になればなるほど環 境への適応度が高まり生存確率が増す。
As a system becomes more adept at responding to the external world, it becomes better at adapting to the surrounding environment, thus further increasing the system’s likelihood for survival.
Positive:
Using “system” as the subject in this sentence is a nice touch that includes organisms and devices.
The tone and register are exactly the same as the Japanese text (no unnecessary big words).
Concern(s):
Use of “becomes” is a literal translation.
Sentence 8
昆虫は予め生得的な行動ルールに基づく反応しか できないが、われわれは教えられることによる学習や、自ら経験することで学習を通して、 蓄えた経験・知識を活用することで、反応の仕方自体を動的に変更するだけでなく、振る舞 いのバリエーション自体も動的に増やすことができる。
Insects can only react according to their innate behavioral rules. In contrast, by making use of what we learned from experience and the knowledge we acquired from others, we are able to both dynamically change the way we respond and create variation in our behaviors.
Positive:
The first short clause is especially clear. The clause about learning combines a large amount of information pleasantly and conveys almost all of the information in the original.
Concern(s): Omitting “accumulated” dilutes the idea that humans have an ever-expanding catalogue of learned knowledge.
The text says “increase variation instead of “create variation,” but this does mislead the reader very much since increasing variation involves creating more variation.
Sentence 9
目的達成のため、いろいろな振る舞 いを試したり、新たな振る舞いを獲得したりできる能力をもつシステムこそが自律性があ る、と呼べるのではないだろうか。
A system can be considered autonomous if it has the ability to test various behaviors and learn new ones in order to achieve a certain goal.
Comment:
Clear and accurate, but lacks the emphatic nature of “と呼べるのではないだろうか”.
Sentence 10
この考え方に基づけば、ルンバや AIBO はいかにも意志をもっているように見えるが、自動機械であり、大雑把に見れば昆虫もこれに含まれるものの、学習する動物などは自律性をもつシステムということになる。
Thus, although the Roomba vacuum cleaner and dog robot AIBO appear to act on their own volition, they are in fact automatic robots. Broadly speaking, insects would also fall under this category, whereas animals that can acquire new behavior and knowledge would be considered autonomous systems.
Positive:
Extremely accurate and pleasant to read for the most part.
“on their own volition” captures the meaning (although “on their own” would be better closer to the register of the original).
“they are in fact automatic robots” is extremely clear, although “automatic” is the wrong word form.
Concern(s):
“dog robot AIBO” is not natural English usage.
The term “learn” is important here, but Robin unnecessarily spelled it out with “can acquire new behavior and knowledge”.
Sentence 11
この自律性が次世代の AI、すなわち、真に人と共生する AI の実現においては極めて重要なのであるが、これは機械学習とは異なる AI 技術である。
This next generation of AI, namely autonomous AI, plays an incredibly vital role in realizing AI and human coexistence, but is distinct from machine learning.
Positive:
Reads very well and doesn’t deprive the reader of much information (first clause of original: autonomy is important in realizing next-gen machines that are symbiotic).
Concern(s):
Doesn’t use the term “symbiotic.”
Should probably use future tense in this English sentence.
Sentence 12
そして、特に米中に大きく研究 開発において遅れをとってしまっている機械学習分野と異なり、自律性や汎用性について は現時点では日本が立ち後れているという状況にはないと認識しており、今後の AI 研究開 発において日本が確固たる立ち位置を確保できる可能性はあると考えている。
Although lagging in terms of research and development (R&D) on machine learning, especially in comparison to the United States and China, Japan is currently making strides in R&D on autonomous and versatile AIs. Therefore, it is possible that Japan will be a competitive figure in AI R&D in the future.
Positive:
Accurately and concisely conveys all of the meaning of this long sentence that tripped up so many contestants.
“making strides” probably reads better than “is not lagging” but loses the lagging/not lagging dichotomy.
Like Robin, chose to recast the original “secure a solid position” which is an excellent turn of phrase itself.
Sentence 13
もちろん、自律型 AI の研究開発は日本だけが注目しているわけではなく、機械学習に対 するフェイク問題と同じ関係にて、自律型 AI 技術に対しては LAWS（致死型自律 AI 兵器） 問題が指摘されるように、自律型 AI の研究開発も世界的にアクティブに進められている。
R&D on autonomous AIs are being actively pursued not only in Japan, but globally as well. There are now concerns for how this technology will lead to Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), the same way machine learning has given rise to the problem of deepfakes.
Positive:
Dispatches nicely with the first and last clauses.
All of the elements occur in a logical order, even though “問題が指摘されるように” is not directly connected with “進められている.”
Concern(s):
“will lead to LAWS” (AI has already led to some LAWS)
AIs: AI is not generally countable.
Sentence 14
文字通り、自律型 AI を搭載した兵器が、自らの判断で最後のトリガーを引く兵器の開発である。
As the name implies, LAWS are weapons guided by autonomous AI that, based on its own judgement, has the ability to release its own trigger.
Positive:
“As the name implies,” for “文字通り”.
Concern(s):
Why omit “final”? It has such a note of finality.
Triggers seem to be almost universally pulled, the same word used in the Japanese text.
Sentence 15
残念ながら数カ国にて開発が行われており、すでに実用化のレベルに到達した兵器も存在している。
Unfortunately, several countries have already carried out the development of these weapons, with some even ready to be deployed.
Positive:
“ready to be deployed” is an excellent turn of phrase.
Concern(s):
English usually uses stronger verbs than Japanese so “carry out development” sounds odd, compared to “already developing”.
Sentence 16
国連において、LAWS 禁止に向けた取り組みも行われているが、そもそも言語道断である戦争において、さらに言語道断である「機械が人の命を絶つ」ということが現 実とならないため、まさに人類の知恵が試されている状況にある[3]。
Although the United Nations is attempting to create measures that will ban nations from deploying LAWS, preventing the use of deadly autonomous weapons (and war, which should be avoided at all costs in the first place) is truly a situation putting human judgement and intelligence to the test.
Positive:
Reads well overall and generally conveys the information in the Japanese.
Concern(s):
The two “abominable” didn’t make it into the sentence.
“deadly” conveys the information, but deprives the English reader of the striking imagery of “machines that kill people.”
Should probably omit “situation:” preventing will put … to the test.”
(Continued to Commentaries from the Judges 3-3)