this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
297 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

82329 readers
4371 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
297
We messed up with the Windows 12 article. What we got wrong and how it happened (www.pcworld.com)
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by Brkdncr@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Earlier this week, PCWorld published a roundup of Windows 12 rumors translated from PCWelt that does not meet our editorial standards. We’re deeply embarrassed by it, and I personally apologize that the article was published. It should not have been, but we’re keeping the article live (with an editor’s note at the top) so it remains in the public record.

Windows Central published a response detailing its errors. Thanks for keeping us accountable, guys — genuinely. In the same spirit of accountability, I want to explain how this happened, and what we’re doing to ensure a mistake like this never occurs again.

Let’s start by discussing how PCWorld handles translated articles, and then I’ll dive into the issues with the article itself.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 minutes ago

I wasn't sure about that article at the time, but it did inspire me to finally try out bazzite on a spare nvme and I found that a lot of my issues in games went away. Particularly fallout 4, the painfully slow loading screens between map changes are like 70% faster now. So I'm sticking with it for my gaming rig.

I never would have though running games through a translation layer could actually improve performance. Id heard a lot of people say so but I assumed it was just Linux devotees being fanboys. They were absolutely right.

[–] Lfrith@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It seems crazy to me for journalists to trust machine/AI translated articles enough to use as a source in their own articles.

I've always seen them as things to treat as unreliable, but something to use when there's no other options available and to get a gist of what it might be about.

If using them as citation I'd need a native speaker to confirm content before being confident enough to include it if I were a journalist.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 2 points 47 minutes ago

There's another alternative: not reporting it as fact, butbeing open about the degree of certainty and the methodology.

"Someone says", "rumor", and "uncertain automated translation" don't make for very convincing sources or journalistic credibility, of course. But being open about context does moreso than hiding it.

[–] Aberration13@lemmy.world 108 points 19 hours ago

Journalistic integrity in this day and age? Hasn't that been outlawed yet?

[–] TRBoom@lemmy.zip 136 points 20 hours ago

Good response. Love it when peeps own up to their mistskes.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 73 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I thought this was a very well written, transparent article that took accountability as seriously as it should. I am still not sure why people are using AI for translation when translation software already existed. People mention that AI is more context aware, but I feel like when you saw those friction points in old translation software it prompted you to look further into the context, whereas AI will just make an executive decision and people feel like it must be right because it's AI. I guess it's possible old language software, or even a translator, would have done the same thing, but I still think people would have less inherent trust in the old software alone. I do want to point out that this AI issue was just a small part of the problem and they addressed plenty of other issues and how they plan to remedy those.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 49 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This wasn’t even an AI issue nor even a translation issue. They published an article that lacked sources, and still wasn’t good enough once sources were added.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 18 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Yea, I mentioned in my comment that there was a confluence of issues, but the article does point out that the AI translation made the statement more definitive.

Edit to add:

As part of our post-mortem on this article’s evolution, PCWelt’s executive editor pointed out that the translation makes the article sound more definitive than its native German. He says that in the context of the article, the German word “soll” signals a rumored expectation, but the English translation used “will” instead of something more akin to “is rumored to.”

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i'd translate sollen as should personally but my german is very poor

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 3 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 42 minutes ago)

It depends on contract. Your interpretation matches use as "should". But there's also use as "claims x" or "is claimed or said to be" which the quote refers to.

Ich soll - I should or I am asked to. Es soll [sein] - it is supposed to be or it supposedly is.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Translation is what the transformer architecture was designed for. It is the state of the art, and translation software has been using ML for a long long time.

This feels like an appropriate use of AI, but failure of editing.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Not with general purpose LLMs. They start off ok, but become much more interested in continuing the text they've already translated, rather than looking back to what it is they're meant to translate. So they drift off course as the translation gets longer.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

General purpose LLMs' failure to do a task like translation must be very funny for their investors. Even the more translation-gocused ones seem to have issues.

[DeepL] translation is said to be generated using a supercomputer that reaches 5.1 petaflops and is operated in Iceland with hydropower.

In general, [convolutional neural network]s are slightly more suitable for long coherent word sequences, but they have so far not been used by the competition because of their weaknesses compared to recurrent neural networks.

The weaknesses of DeepL are compensated for by supplemental techniques, some of which are publicly known.

(ETA I need to edit my comments to federate them?)

[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 19 hours ago

I am still not sure why people are using AI for translation when translation software already existed.

Pre-existing software was also never terribly accurate.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

AI is now the dog you blame for your flatulence.

[–] mystik@lemmy.world 18 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

[–] moody@lemmings.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Yes the word for cat is "chat" but the word for chat, in the online sense is also "chat" and it's pronounced like the English word. It should also be capitalised because it's a proper noun, eliminating the ambiguity that may exist.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Next time I shit in my bosses coffee I'll blame AI. After all he required me to use it more.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 12 points 17 hours ago

Me: "Should I shit in my boss's coffee?"

ChatGPT: "This is probably not a good idea. Most people do not like shit in their coffee."

Me: "I really think my boss would like it."

ChatGPT: "You're absolutely right. You should definitely shit in your boss's coffee. He's sure to appreciate it."

(And then, when your boss is mildly irritated, show him this conversation.)

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

“AI made me do it.”

[–] BladeFederation@piefed.social 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Admitting their mistakes makes me want to read their articles more. If only Microsoft could bring themselves to do the same.