E45 Finalist
Catherine Xu
NSW Australia
Catherine’s English was particularly appropriate for the Japanese text. She identified whole organism/device as the system and faithfully stuck with “secure a solid position.” Catherine also attempted to address the connection between “指摘されるように” and “アクティブに進められている” in Sentence 13 in a very logical manner. Taking quite a bit of license she used field-specific terminology for LAWS.
Unfortunately, there were large meaning-transfer errors when classifying insects in sentence 10 and concerning problems with LAWS in Sentence 13. There were also quite a few grammatical and usage errors and language that was in the wrong register.
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）。
Consider insects, for instance. In order to achieve (or sustain) their goal of survival, they merely select their actions by following a set of behavioural rules (which are present from birth). These rules define which action or action sequence to activate from their behavioural repertoire in response to sensory input from their environment.
Positive:
Catherine also strongly drew the reader’s attention by isolating “insects” in a separate sentence and went on to divide the sentence into three.
Catherine used the term “goal” and retained one of the parenthetical expressions and thus the cadence of the Japanese.
Concern(s):
The author seems to be using general terms intentionally, so “sensory input” at this point loses the tone of the original “information from the outside world.”
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。
Therefore, since the behaviour of these insects are controlled by rules for input data detected by sensors, such as antennae, insects can appear to be autonomous organisms that are extremely close to being automated.
Positive:
The autonomy/automation dichotomy is very clear.
Concern(s):
“are controlled”: wrong verb conjugation.
Also, Catherine used “antennae” for “tactile sense”, perhaps because both are spelled the same, and she confused the two. The author keeps things very general, so the simpler, the better.
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 contrast, consider humans, who share the same goal of survival with insects.
Positive:
Deftly handles “in contrast, … is the same” while retaining a structure that is parallel to the opening line of “consider 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。
In our usual daily lives, whenever we perform an action, we do not consciously do it for our survival. Rather, we eat when we are hungry, we do our homework because we do not like to be scolded, and we move somewhere in order to meet with someone.
Positive:
Despite the choppy, Japanese sequence of the sentence, it reads amazingly well and convey the information clearly.
“do not consciously do it” hits home.
The parallelism of the things we do also makes creates a vivid image.
Concern(s):
“usual daily lives” is literal and unnatural.
“scolded” not the right register.
“we move somewhere in order to meet with someone” pays too much attention to “移動”. Also “meet with someone” sounds more like a business meeting than a social encounter. (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。
However, it is all, in essence, for the purpose of survival. We are systems which are constantly deciding on an appropriate action to take in response to a situation, in order to achieve our goal of survival. Both insects and humans are alike in this respect.
Positive:
Good separation of clauses. It seems odd to put “are alike” last, but the information comes across.
“in essence” is not bad for “元を正せば”.
We are the systems.
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 is that humans have an extraordinarily large variety of behaviours with which to respond to information from the external world, and also that the relationship of which behaviours are elicited in response to that information from the external world is extremely complex.
Positive:
Catherine accounts for all of the information in a palatable, if somewhat pedestrian manner, especially the confusing second difference.
Concern(s):
Comparatives are not used as suggested by “圧倒的に”.
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 cleverly we can respond to our environment, the higher our fitness level and greater our probability of survival.
Positive:
Very accurate and succinct.
Concern(s):
The adverb “cleverly” not the best word here. The construction of “the more xxx we are at responding” used by others is more natural.
“fitness level” is a higher technical register than the text.
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 insects are only capable of making responses according to genetically-encoded behavioural rules, humans can not only dynamically change how they respond, but also dynamically add variations to their behaviours by applying the experience and knowledge they have accumulated through the process of learning, whether from being taught or from personal experience.
Positive:
Each clause is translated articulately.
The phrase “through the process of learning” pays homage to the fact that “learning” is mentioned twice in the Japanese and “learning” is what AI does. Learning needs to be emphasized in this sentence in this way.
“learning, whether from” has a nice conversational ring to it.
Concern(s):
Left as one long sentence, this is rambling to the English reader.
“genetically-encoded” is a higher technical register than the Japanese.
“making responses”
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。
It is perhaps this ability to try out various behaviours and to acquire new ones, in order to achieve a goal, that distinguishes a system as having autonomy.
Positive:
“this ability” ties beautifully back to previous sentence.
Reflects the emphatic nature of the sentence with “distinguishes” which obviates need for extra verbiage to account for Japanese rhetorical question.
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。
Under this criterion, however conscious AI robots such as Roomba vacuums or Sony's AIBO dogs may appear to be, they are automatic machines, and it is animals that learn, and roughly speaking, insects too, that fall under the umbrella of autonomous systems.
Concern(s):
Of course, a natural dog would not be made by Sony, but “AIBO dogs” doesn’t tell the reader that the dog is a robot.
“意志” isn’t exactly consciousness.
Unfortunately, one of Catherine’s two large meaning transfer errors occurs in this sentence. “Animals” aren’t in the “roughly speaking” part of the sentence. Insects are automated like robots, and systems that can learn such as animals are autonomous.
The English in the sentence may be choppy because Catherine was struggling to find the meaning.
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 crucial for the realisation of next-generation AI, in other words, the generation of AI that will be living symbiotically with humans. However, it involves different AI technology to machine learning.
Positive:
Use of word “symbiotically” is consistent with the theme of the entire article.
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。
Japan may be lagging far behind the US and China in terms of research and development in the field of machine learning, but at present, this is not at all the case in terms of autonomous intelligence and artificial general intelligence. There may be a possibility for Japan to secure a firm position in future AI research and development.
Positive:
The translation is divided in two sentences for readability.
“Far” is a natural-sounding translation for “大きく”.
“this is not at all the case” avoids repeating words meaning “lagging”.
The faithful translation of “to secure a firm position” is just as powerful as any reworded rendering.
Concern(s):
Omitted “特に” in the first clause and AI in last clause, which obscures the meaning to the reader somewhat.
“autonomous intelligence and artificial general intelligence” are not incorrect, but “artificial general intelligence” is not consistent with the non-technical tone of the article.
“There may be a possibility for” cleaves a little to close to the Japanese (it may be possible for).
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, Japan is certainly not the only country with their attention on the research and development of autonomous AI systems. Just as machine learning has its problem of deepfake technology, autonomous AI technology has its own issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). In order to address this challenge, research into autonomous AI systems is being engaged with globally.
Positive:
Divided up this long sentence and attempted to address the connection between “指摘されるように” and “アクティブに進められている”.
The English sounds very logical.
Concern(s):
Catherine’s other meaning transfer error occurs here.
Concern about LAWs has arisen because of (as evidence of) active research. Active research isn’t being pursued to address the challenge of LAWS.
Usage error: “engaged in”, not “engaged with”
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 they sound, LAWS are weapons systems with autonomous AI which can independently select and engage targets and make the final decision to pull the trigger.
Positive:
“make the final decision to pull the trigger” has exactly the right impact on the English reader.
Didn’t use “literally.”
Concern(s):
“As they sound” doesn’t mean “as the name implies” in American English. That may not be true globally.
“select and engage targets” is directly from a definition of LAWS, does not mislead the reader, and adds to the ominous tone of this sentence. However, the phrase is not present in the Japanese.
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。
Regrettably, the development of LAWS is occurring in several countries, and there already exists weapons which have reached the stage of deployment.
Positive:
“stage of deployment” is probably a good free translation.
Concern(s):
“development … is occurring” is bland.
“there exists … weapons” is an incorrect verb conjugation.
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]。
Efforts are underway to ban LAWS at the United Nations, but to ensure that the senseless possibility of machines taking lives does not become a reality in already senseless wars, it is precisely the wisdom of humanity that is now being tested.
Positive:
Achieves a kind of parallelism equivalent to the Japanese text “senseless possibility” in “already senseless wars” that indicates that degree of senselessness will be increased by LAWS.
Concern(s):
Kind of sounds like LAWS will be banned at the UN.
With “to ensure…, it is precisely the wisdom of humanity that is now being tested”, it is hard for the English reader to follow the prose and the idea.
E54 Finalist
Mizuki Kitamoto
Sendai
Mizuki’s translation is pleasantly written with some vivid and eloquent phrasing. Mizuki uses “alive” and “living” instead of “survival” and “goal” instead of “purpose.”
Liberal recasting of sentences, while generally good in J-E translation, might have made some sentences unclear or changed the meaning. There is some article misusage, pluralization problems, trouble with some English expressions, and a few awkward spots. However, the problems are not that severe and the text doesn’t really sound translated.
Sentence One and 2
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）。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 example, insects choose actions only based on inherent rules, which determine which of the innate behavioral sequences should be put into action in response to the information from the outside world, in order to achieve their goal of living, or remaining alive. Their behaviors are chosen according to action rules for different inputs obtained through sensors such as touch receptors, and it means that the autonomy level of insects is quite close to automation.
Positive:
Mizuki combined the first and second sentences into two sentences containing elements of each. They are accurate and pleasant to read, but somewhat rambling as a result combining them.
Mizuki uses “alive” and “living” instead of various forms of “survival” and “goal” instead of “purpose.”
Reproducing “information from the outside world” faithfully conveys to the reader the non-technical nature of the text.
The autonomy/automation dichotomy is clear expressed.
“[the preceding] means…” is an excellent construction.
now
Concern(s):
Article misusage: “the innate behavioral sequences” and “the information from the outside world”. (Those things aren’t mentioned before and are not standing institutions (like “the refrigerator”), so no “the” is called for.
“action rules” appear to be used for insects, but are of a higher technical register than what the Japanese reader sees with “行動系列”.
The “it” of “it means” is unclear because there are too many preceding elements. “This means” somehow draws the reader’s attention back to the entire idea of insect behavior.
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。
And humans are the same as insects in that their goals are "to live."
Positive:
Gets the transition to humans up front.
Concern(s):
“And” is kind of weak.
“goals” should probably be singular as it is the common goal of all humans.
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。
In everyday life, we do not choose certain actions thinking it is necessary "to live"; we eat simply because we are hungry, we do our homework because we do not want to get in trouble, and we go somewhere in order to meet someone.
Positive:
“In everyday life” is an almost perfect rendering of the Japanese.
Although Mizuki doesn’t use “consciously”, the reader understands that we don’t think “what do I need to do next to live” before performing an action.
The things we do are described clearly. “we do not want to get in trouble” is exactly the same register as the Japanese, and “we go somewhere in order to meet someone” doesn’t subject the English reader to some contorted usage of “move”.
Concern(s):
Mizuki omits “行動を発動させ”, but it enhances the parallel structure of the sentence.
Use of a semicolon. Might as well just break these long Japanese sentences into separate English sentences.
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, we are the same as insects in a sense that every action is for living and that both of our systems keep selecting the best action for each situation in order to achieve the goal.
Concern(s):
While this sentence is nicely written, it has a number of flaws.
By omitting “元を正せばすべて”, the reader ends up seeing “And humans are the same as insects…. However, we are the same as insects”
Although this similarity is qualified later in the sentence, the non sequitur still passes the reader’s eyes.
“in a sense that”. The expression is “in the sense that”.
“both of our systems”: The entire organism or device is probably the system.
Leaving in “of living” in “生きるという目 的” would probably be clearer to the English reader.
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。
Differences lie where humans have a far wider variety of behaviors in response to information from outside and where the correlation between such information and selected behavior is much more complex than that of insects.
Comment:
The phrasing of this long sentence is clear and succinct.
The differences are rightly cast as comparisons.
Adding “insects” as the point of comparison makes the sentence even clearer.
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 ingenious reactions to the outside world get, the better animals can adapt to the environment, which results in higher survival probability.
Comment:
Are animals or all systems the subject here? The two parties in the preceding sentence are animals.
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 insects can only react by innate action rule, we humans can learn by being taught or experiencing ourselves, and by utilizing the accumulated knowledge and experience, we can dynamically alter the way we react and also increase the variety of behaviors.
Positive:
This translation conveys all of the information in the original in a manner that an English speaker can understand.
Probably okay to mention dynamically only once in English as it applies to both verbs in the English word order.
Concern(s):
However, there are several examples of usage that would sound strange to the reader.
“according to innate action rules” would be better than “by innate action rule”.
“Experiencing ourselves” may sound like we are learning about ourselves.
“and also” is borderline redundant.
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。
I think that what we can call autonomous systems are ones with abilities to test various behaviors and acquire new behaviors in order to achieve the goal.
Positive:
Conveys all of the substantial meaning to the reader.
Concern(s):
Since this is a kind of definition, it is probably better to use the singular form of “systems”.
Needs a more emphatic rhetorical flourish such as “isn’t that what an autonomous system really is?”
Should probably use “a goal” here.
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 definition, although Roomba and AIBO look as if they can really think, they are automated machines, and roughly speaking, insects are one of them. By contrast, we can say that animals which can learn have autonomous systems.
Positive:
Conveys all of the substantial information concisely to the reader.
Dividing into two sentences adds to clarity.
“really think” suggests agency, as opposed to being conscious.
“by contrast” adds to the clarity.
Concern(s):
If Roombas are not identified, they should be pluralized. AIBOs should probably always be identified to English readers.
“One of them” doesn’t work here, although there are many such expressions in English such as “so you’re one of them?” A more literal translation would even have worked better.
The organisms/devices are the systems.
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。
The autonomy is imperative in realizing the AI of the next generation, which can truly live in harmony with humans, and it's important to note that this AI technology is different from machine learning.
Positive:
Conveys all of the substantial information.
“and it's important to note” is a nice touch for “が”
Concern(s):
Placing a “the” before “autonomy” is jarring to the English reader.
The author means “symbiosis” rather than “harmony”
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 Japan lags far behind the U.S. and China in research and development of machine learning, I don't think we are behind in developing autonomous and versatile AI technologies at this point. I think there is a possibility that Japan could secure a firm position in the field of future AI research and development.
Positive:
The translation reads well.
“far” is a vividly conveys the idea of “ 大きく” here.
The use of “we” emphasizes the fact that the author is Japanese.
Sticks with the powerful original wording of “secure a firm position”.
Concern(s):
By omitting “特に”, the reader isn’t informed that the US and China are the particular culprits.
“the field of future AI R&D” sounds like people in this field study an AI that exists in the future.
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, Japan is not alone in giving attention to autonomous AI. Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) is causing controversy in the field of autonomous AI, as deepfake is in that of machine learning, and it shows that autonomous AI is actively being researched and developed around the world.
Positive:
“is not alone in” is a nice turn of phrase.
This is the best translation of the finalists for the seemingly haphazard connection between “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている.”
Concern(s):
“giving attention to” is a little weak for “注目している”.
“controversy” seems borderline too strong for this context, but may not be.
Verb conjugation: Systems … is.
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。
Weapons with autonomous AI literally means that their AI can make a final decision to pull the deadly trigger.
Positive:
Combined “final” and “decision” to be consistent with the English expression.
Concern(s):
Verb conjugation: “Weapons … means”
“literally” for “文字通り” does not convey the same mood or make as deep an impact on the English reader as “As the name implies”.
Article usage: “the final decision”
“Deadly trigger” seems to exist as an expression in English, although it frequently appears in translations. However, it is not that natural-sounding here.
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。
The sad thing is that several countries have been developing such weapons, and some weapons have already reached a practical level.
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]。
Although the UN is also working on banning LAWS, whether or not we can avoid absolutely unacceptable situations where "machinery kills humankind," during a war which is abominable itself, really depends on the wisdom of humanity.
Positive:
Conveys the information somewhat pleasantly.
The “abdominal” “abdominal” wordplay is retained to a certain extent, although the word “abdominal” is not repeated.
Concern(s):
"machinery kills humankind", is the right idea because you want to convey the horrific image of machines killing people. However, “humankind” is not natural, and “people” or even “humans/human beings” would strike the reader better.
“a war”. The author is probably referring to the general concept or state of war.
“depends on the wisdom of humanity” conveys the original notion, but the original wording of “will test humanity’s …” may be even more powerful.
E27 Finalist
Ciaran Doyle
Galway Ireland
Ciaran’s English was very pleasant in a conscientious translation that included an excellent rendition of “元を正せば” as “”it ultimately comes back to” in Sentence 5. Sentence 13 was extremely well written and Ciaran tied together “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている”.
Valiant attempts to provide glue or context might have led away from the meaning as in “Only two factors separate our two species” in Sentence 6. Unfortunately, there were significant or major transfer errors that obscured the meaning to the reader, involving “移動” in Sentence 4, “巧妙に” in Sentence 8, and who’s lagging behind in Sentence 12.
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）。
If we examine insects, we shall see that in order to achieve their goal of living (self-preservation), their behavior is apparently entirely determined by a system of rules which selects the course of action to be taken in response to information received from the outside world. This is done by drawing on a previously compiled behavioral system, as the rules are present from birth.
Positive:
Does not separate insects into a separate sentence, but does draw the reader’s attention to insects pretty forcefully.
Uses “goal”.
Conveys the non-technical tone of the Japanese with “outside world”.
Concern(s):
Register slightly too formal.
Uses two terms for “living”.
The rules don’t actually select the action.
Adds “system of” to rules.
Calls “sequence of behaviors” a behavioral system, so the reader doesn’t that the author means this is a series of steps to perform.
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 results in what appears to be a highly autonomous organism which responds to sensory input (e.g., from tactile sensors) with rule-based behavior. The insect may even seem to act almost automatically.
Positive:
The English reads extremely well.
Concern(s):
“Highly” (“極めて”) modifies “closeness,” not “autonomy.”
Text doesn’t say insect’s autonomy is extremely close to automation.
The difference between the autonomous nature and automatic nature is lost in that the organism is described as “highly autonomous” and also “act[ing] almost automatically.”
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。
Humans have exactly the same goal as insects: to continue living.
Positive:
Excellent clear statement alerts reader that the discussion has shifted to humans.
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。
When we perform actions in our daily lives, we do not consciously think of them as directly contributing to this goal. We eat because we are hungry, and we do our homework to avoid getting in trouble. We act in accordance with the people around us.
Positive:
The things we do and why we them is accurately translated into pleasant English.
“we do our homework to avoid getting in trouble” is the right register.
Concern(s):
Unfortunate meaning transfer error involving: “We act in accordance with the people around us” (we 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。
However, if we look to the origin of these motivations, we find that it ultimately comes back to our goal of preservation. In order to keep living, we select what we believe to be the most appropriate response to the environment around us. Just like insects, our “system” continuously chooses the most appropriate behavior.
Positive:
Excellent rendition of “元を正せば” in “”it ultimately comes back to ....”
Very pleasantly written and conveys the bulk of the meaning to the reader.
Concern(s):
“Humans and insects are alike” applies to the entire sentence.
The organism/devices seem to be the systems.
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。
Only two factors separate our two species. First, there is the overwhelming number of different types of behavior that we humans have available to us in response to external stimuli. Second, the specific behavior that is chosen in response to a specific set of input information also differs, to an incredibly complex degree.
Positive:
The sentence is divided into manageable portions for the English reader.
The translation of the second clause is accurate.
Concern(s):
There are indeed two differences here, but the text doesn’t say that, and it probably not be true, that only two factors separate our species. Plus, all insects comprise more than one species.
The translation of the second difference conveys a lot of the information to the reader, but it is not the difference in behaviors that is complex. The relationship between the selected behavior and the external stimuli (i.e., the process of decision) are extremely complex.
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 complex the response to the external stimulus, the better adapted to its environment the organism becomes, and the greater its chance of survival.
Positive:
Natural language for the last two parts of the sentence.
Concern(s): “巧妙に” means deftly, skillfully, cleverly.
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 respond to stimuli based on innate, predetermined rules. We humans, however, can draw on learned behavior from what we have been taught as well as our own experiences. With this accumulated knowledge and experience, we can dynamically adjust our own reactions and further, dynamically increase the variation of behavior too.
Positive:
Divides this long sentence into clearly understandable parts for the English reader.
Concern(s):
“変更する” simply means “change” or “alter”.
Usage: variation in
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。
Systems with the capability to try various behaviors, and to learn new forms of behavior in order to achieve the goal of preservation – these are exactly what we are talking about when we refer to “autonomous systems”, are they not?
Positive:
Fully conveys the rhetorical device used in this sentence.
Concern(s):
A little wordy. Maybe better to say “this is…” (the singular idea is)
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。
Following this line of thinking, while machines such as Roombas and AIBO might appear to exhibit conscious thought, they are still merely automatic machines. Insects might also, in some cases, be included in this category. The result is that we classify only organisms capable of learning as having autonomous systems.
Positive:
Conveys the general meaning and is pleasant to read.
Concern(s):
AIBO should probably be identified, although this usage is natural English. Ciaran refers to Roombas as one would refer to machines and to AIBO as one would refer to a persona.
“意志をもっている” is probably more like “act on their own” (literally, “have a will”) than conscious.
“automated” rather than “automatic”
“roughly speaking” rather than “in some cases”
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 crucially important to next generation AI, that is to say, AI which can genuinely coexist alongside humans. However, this AI technology differs from machine learning.
Positive:
Pleasant to read, and gets most of meaning across.
Concern(s):
“i.e.” instead of “that is to say”
“symbiosis” not “co-existence”
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。
In contrast to the field of machine learning, where Japan has the lead over the major research and development work (of the US and China in particular), autonomy and versatility are areas where we must recognize that Japan is lagging behind the others. Japan must act to secure its place at the head of future AI research and development.
Concern(s):
Unfortunately major transfer errors.
Japan is lagging behind the US and China in machine learning, but not in autonomy and versatility. Japan has a chance to secure its place at the head.
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 unique to Japan. And while research and development of autonomous AI is actively continuing across the globe, it is not without consequences. Just as the issue of deepfakes has emerged in the field of machine learning, AI has its own problem with LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems).
Positive:
Extremely well written.
Uses “is not without consequences” to tie together “問題が指摘されるように” and “進められている”, although with some license.
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, LAWS are weapons systems with built-in AI, which means they can judge when to pull the trigger without any human input.
Positive:
Vividly conveys pretty much the same picture as the Japanese to the English reader.
“As the name suggests,” for “文字通り”
Concern(s):
“without human input” is another way to say “on their own”, but it doesn’t specifically state that the weapons have agency like “on their own” does.
The dreaded air of finality is lacking as a result of omitting “final”.
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, due to development in multiple countries, there are some instances of practical implementation already.
Concern(s):
Unless it’s referring to technical difficulties on my television set, “due to” is a hackneyed expression that it’s good to avoid.
Especially with this construction, things are laid out that clearly to the reader without mentioning LAWS.
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]。
The United Nations are making efforts to ban the development of LAWS, as the absurd horror of ongoing wars will only be further exacerbated if machines begin killing humans. This must be prevented; truly, we are at a point where the wisdom of humanity is being tested.3
Positive:
This is beautiful and faithful translation that conserves the diction of the Japanese.
Concern(s):
It would only need some minor tweaking: refer to war as a general concept.
“This must be prevented” is stronger than the original Japanese.
Inclusion of footnote. Although this is a conscientious gesture, additional formatting that must be removed or modified may not be welcome by translation users.
END