Navigating the Convergence of Human Expertise and Artificial Intelligence in the Translation Field

Navigating the Convergence of Human Expertise and Artificial Intelligence in the Translation Field

Muhammad Luqman Ibnul Hakim Mohd Saad¹, Nik Ahmad Kamal Juhari Nik Hashim², Nurazan Mohmad Rouyan³

^1,2Academy of Language Studies, University Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Kelantan Branch, Malaysia

³Sultan Zainal Abidin University (UniSZA), Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000372

Received: 23 June 2025; Accepted: 27 June 2025; Published: 18 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The landscape of the translation profession has been fundamentally transformed by the rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Neural Machine Translation (NMT). The current discourse is frequently polarised, fluctuating between optimistic visions of seamless communication and insecure fears of human obsolescence. This article transcends this dichotomy to examine the intricate, symbiotic relationship that has been developed between AI systems and human translators. Employing a systematic review of recent academic literature, this article examines the current state of human–AI collaboration in translation. The analysis indicates that the predominant interaction model is not a replacement, but rather a collaborative framework known as Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE) within a “Human-in-the-Loop” (HITL) paradigm. Although AI is capable of processing large volumes of texts at an astonishing pace, human expertise is still essential for tasks that require cultural nuance, contextual comprehension, creativity, and ethical judgement. As a result, translators are now required to possess a new set of linguistic, technological, and domain-specific abilities as their roles evolved from text generators to quality validators, editors, and cultural consultants. In summary, the future of translation is neither fully automated nor fully human, but rather a synergistic collaboration that combines the cognitive depth of human intelligence with the computational power of AI.

Keywords: artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE), Human-in-the-Loop (HITL), Human–AI Collaboration

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the field of translation rooted in human linguistic expertise and cultural nuance, has become increasingly intertwined with computational processes. Before the advent of technology and AI, translation was a craft passed down through generations, relying solely on the translator’s profound understanding of source and target languages, as well as their deep cultural knowledge. This human-centric approach emphasized not just linguistic conversion, but also the nuanced interpretation of context, tone, and intent, often involving laborious manual processes and extensive research into specialized terminology and cultural references.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) represents a defining hallmark of 21st-century technological advancement, transforming a wide array of industries and reshaping professional identities. Among the sectors most profoundly impacted is translation. Historically grounded in human linguistic expertise and cultural nuance, the field of translation has increasingly become intertwined with computational processes. The emergence and rapid development of Neural Machine Translation (NMT) systems mark a pivotal shift from theoretical possibilities to tangible, everyday applications. Unlike earlier rule-based or statistical models, modern NMT engines can generate highly fluent and contextually appropriate translations, significantly narrowing the quality gap between human and machine output (Castilho et al., 2017; Toral & Sánchez-Cartagena, 2017).

This evolution is not merely technical but paradigmatic, as it prompts a reevaluation of the human translator’s role in an AI-mediated environment, where collaboration between human and machine is becoming the new norm (Pym, 2011; Gaspari et al., 2015). This significant technological advancement has sparked a divide in both professional and academic discussions. On one side are proponents who argue that AI will dismantle language barriers and enhance global communication. On the other, professionals express concern and skepticism, fearing that human skills will be devalued, translation quality will decline, and widespread job displacement may occur (Gaspari, 2023).

However, a closer examination of current practices reveals a reality far more nuanced than either extreme suggests. The recent mainstream adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has further accelerated this transformation, moving beyond traditional NMT to produce text with even greater fluency and contextual awareness, thereby intensifying the debate around the future of human expertise (Amini & Ibrahim-González, 2024). Yet, rather than outright replacement, a collaborative ecosystem is emerging that strategically integrates the strengths of both humans and machines. This article urges readers to move beyond the simplistic “human versus machine” debate to explore the evolving dynamics of their cooperation. The central objective is to demonstrate that AI is not replacing human translators but is augmenting their capabilities and reshaping the profession in transformative ways.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Recent academic literature reflects a dynamic and rapidly evolving field, moving from questions of whether to use Machine Translation (MT) to how to best integrate it into professional workflows. This section delves into the technological shifts, cognitive implications, persistent limitations of AI, and the evolution of the professional skillset that collectively define the current landscape. The transition from Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) to Neural Machine Translation (NMT) in the mid-2010s marked a pivotal technological leap, fundamentally altering the quality and nature of machine-generated text. Unlike SMT, which operated on a phrase-based statistical model by breaking sentences into smaller chunks, NMT utilizes deep learning and recurrent neural networks to process entire sentences as a single, continuous unit of analysis (Forcada, 2019).

This architectural difference allows NMT systems to capture long-range dependencies and consider the broader context of a sentence, resulting in translations that are significantly more fluent, coherent, and grammatically sound than their predecessors. This marked improvement in raw output quality has been the primary catalyst for the widespread industry adoption of Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE), a hybrid workflow where a human translator reviews, corrects, and refines the AI-generated text to meet predefined quality standards. This model has proven to yield significant productivity gains, particularly for high-volume, technical, or informational content, making it the dominant human-AI interaction paradigm in the industry today (Vieira, 2020).

While MTPE demonstrably increases speed, it also introduces a distinct set of cognitive challenges that differentiate it from traditional translation. Research into the cognitive load—the mental effort required to perform the task—reveals that post-editing is not simply a less effortful version of translation. Using methods like eye-tracking and keystroke logging, studies show that post-editors must engage in a complex cycle of diagnostic evaluation and correction, constantly switching between reading the source text, evaluating the machine’s suggestion, identifying errors, and formulating revisions (Herbig et al., 2021). A significant cognitive hurdle in this process is the priming effect, a well-documented bias where the post-editor is unduly influenced by the MT output (da Silva, 2021). Because a plausible (though perhaps flawed) translation is already present, the translator may unconsciously accept awkward phrasings, literalisms, or subtle errors that they would not have produced if translating from scratch. This can lead to a final product that “sounds translated” and lacks the naturalness or stylistic elegance of a text created entirely by a human. To manage this, the field has developed different levels of post-editing—from “light” PE, which aims for comprehensibility by correcting only major errors, to “full” PE, which seeks to achieve a quality indistinguishable from human translation, each demanding a different level and type of cognitive investment.

Despite their growing sophistication, AI translation systems have well-documented limitations rooted in their fundamental lack of true comprehension and world knowledge. A central theme in the literature is their inability to consistently grasp and render cultural context, subtext, humor, and idiomatic expressions. Language is not a sterile code; it is deeply embedded in cultural practices and social norms. AI models, which operate on statistical patterns derived from vast text corpora, can often produce translations that are literally correct but culturally or pragmatically inappropriate (Kenny, 2022). For instance, in a western setting where translation takes place, the authentic translated meaning would not be able to be interpret correctly by Asians or audience in the east for the vast difference in their cultures and perhaps religious practices as well.

This deficit is particularly acute in high-stakes and creative fields. In marketing and literature, where emotional resonance, brand voice, and creativity are paramount, AI’s weaknesses are even more apparent. Research on literary translation shows that NMT and even more advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to handle complex literary devices, maintain a consistent authorial voice across a narrative, or replicate the delicate balance of novelty and appropriateness that defines creative language (Guerberof-Arenas & Toral, 2022). Similarly, in legal translation, where precision and the correct interpretation of jurisdiction-specific terminology are critical, reliance on unedited MT can have severe consequences. As a result, for any content where nuance, creativity, and accuracy are crucial, human expertise remains non-negotiable.

The integration of AI is therefore catalyzing a profound shift in the professional profile of the translator, demanding a more multifaceted and technologically oriented skillset. This evolution is not a de-skilling of the profession, but rather a significant re-skilling that prioritizes new competencies. The focus is moving from pure linguistic conversion to quality assurance, editing, and technology management. To thrive in this new ecosystem, the modern translator must now possess advanced technological proficiency, including expertise in Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools, Translation Management Systems (TMS), and an understanding of how to work with, customize, and provide feedback to MT engines.

Furthermore, post-editing expertise has become a core competency, requiring not just linguistic acuity but also the ability to efficiently diagnose error patterns and make nuanced edits that improve accuracy, fluency, and style. As AI handles more generic content, specialized domain knowledge in fields like law, medicine, finance, or engineering becomes a key differentiator, making human translators with deep expertise invaluable for high-stakes projects. Thus, the role increasingly involves quality assurance and consulting, where the translator acts as a language consultant, advising clients on the most appropriate translation strategy (e.g., raw MT, light PE, full human translation) based on the content’s purpose, audience, and risk profile (Gaspari, 2023). This shift requires greater technical acumen, sharper editorial judgment, and a more consultative approach to providing language services.

METHODOLOGY

This article employs a systematic literature review as its primary methodology to address the research objective. This approach was chosen for its ability to provide a comprehensive and replicable synthesis of the existing scholarly landscape on the convergence of AI and human translation. To ensure currency and relevance in this rapidly advancing field, the search was rigorously constrained to peer-reviewed academic papers, books, and dissertations published within a relevant timeframe, primarily focusing on recent developments.

The selection process involved specific inclusion criteria: sources had to directly address the interaction between human translators and AI, focusing on professional practice, cognitive factors, or pedagogical implications. Following the selection of sources, the collected literature was analyzed using a qualitative thematic synthesis approach. This involved a multi-stage process of familiarization with the data, systematic coding to identify key concepts, and the development of analytical themes. This structured method allows for the identification of recurring patterns, points of consensus, and areas of debate within the research. The resulting synthesis forms a robust basis for the discussion and findings, enabling a structured analysis of the symbiotic relationship between humans and AI translators and an informed perspective on the future trajectory of the field.

DISCUSSION

The synthesized literature points to a clear conclusion that the relationship between AI and human translators is best understood not as a competition, but as a dynamic collaboration that reshapes the profession. The prevailing narrative of replacement is unsupported by current evidence; instead, the Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) model has become standard practice. This symbiotic partnership strategically leverages AI’s speed and capacity for handling large data volumes, while empowering the human translator to focus on higher-order tasks requiring critical thinking, cultural adaptation, and ethical judgement.

This collaboration gives rise to the prominent role of the “post-editor,” a professional identity that moves beyond simple error correction to encompass sophisticated quality assurance and cultural consulting. As such, the post-editor’s task is not merely remedial but value-adding, ensuring that the final text meets nuanced quality standards that the machine alone cannot perceive. This evolving role underscores a shift from translation as a purely linguistic act to one that integrates technological management and editorial oversight.

The hybrid ecosystem necessitates a more granular and context-dependent definition of translation quality. The one-size-fits-all approach is no longer viable, as the level of human intervention must be carefully calibrated to the specific requirements of a project. The decision-making process now involves assessing whether raw MT is sufficient for gisting purposes or if full, meticulous post-editing is required for high-impact content such as legal contracts or marketing campaigns, where accuracy and cultural resonance are paramount.

However, this new paradigm is not without its challenges. While AI integration offers substantial productivity benefits (Vieira, 2020), it concurrently introduces new challenges related to algorithmic bias and data security, which demand human oversight and ethical governance to mitigate potential risks. The risks of AI systems perpetuating stereotypes found in their training data, or of confidential information being compromised, highlight the essential role of the human translator as an ethical guardian. Furthermore, this technological integration also exerts downward pressure on rates for certain types of content, creating economic complexities that necessitate transparent workflows and fair compensation models that properly value the critical, uniquely human skills translators contribute to this evolving, synergistic field.

FINDINGS

This article synthesises several key findings that clarify the symbiotic relationship between human expertise and artificial intelligence in the contemporary translation landscape. The investigation confirms that the interaction between human and machine is predominantly collaborative rather than competitive, with the “human-in-the-loop” paradigm—primarily executed through Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE)—emerging as the industry standard. This model strategically leverages AI for its speed and capacity to handle large volumes of data, while reserving the indispensable role of the human translator for tasks requiring higher-order cognitive skills such as creative problem-solving and ethical deliberation.

Furthermore, the findings underscore that human intervention remains irreplaceable for high-stakes content where cultural nuance, contextual accuracy, and creative expression are paramount, a conclusion strongly supported by research into the cognitive demands of the post-editing process (Herbig et al., 2021; da Silva, 2021). The cognitive abilities of human translators to perform inferential reasoning and exercise ethical judgement are critical in domains such as legal, medical, and literary translation, where machine-generated output is often inadequate and potentially harmful (Guerberof-Arenas & Toral, 2022).

This study finds that the role of the translator is undergoing a significant evolution, transitioning from a primary focus on linguistic conversion to a more multifaceted role that encompasses technological proficiency, advanced editorial judgment, and specialized quality assurance. This re-skilling necessitates a new professional profile for translators, who must now navigate complex AI-driven workflows and act as consultants on language quality, a shift that redefines professional value away from mere word production (Pym, 2011).

The article further highlights that while AI integration offers substantial productivity benefits (Vieira, 2020), it concurrently introduces new challenges related to algorithmic bias and data security, which demand human oversight and ethical governance to mitigate potential risks. These findings collectively affirm the research objective by demonstrating that the reality of AI in translation is not one of replacement, but a complex and synergistic partnership that reshapes professional roles, redefines quality, and introduces new ethical considerations.

CONCLUSION

The narrative of AI as a job-killer in the translation industry is an oversimplification of a far more intricate and dynamic reality. The evidence presented in this review overwhelmingly points not to a replacement of human translators, but to a profound realignment of their professional roles and responsibilities. The future of translation is a synergistic one, where human intelligence directs, refines, and validates the output of artificial intelligence. This partnership enables a level of speed and scale that was previously unimaginable, while simultaneously elevating the importance of the uniquely human skills that machines cannot replicate: deep cultural fluency, creativity, ethical judgment, and critical thought. The translator of the future, therefore, is not merely a linguist but a versatile language professional—a tech-savvy editor, a cultural consultant, and a guardian of quality in an increasingly automated world. The challenges of bias, data privacy, and economic disruption are real and must be addressed proactively by industry and academia through the development of robust ethical guidelines, transparent workflows, and fair compensation models. To continue navigating this evolution effectively, future research should focus on several key areas. Longitudinal studies on the cognitive and psychological impacts of long-term post-editing are needed to understand its effect on professional well-being and skill development. The creation of more sophisticated, context-aware quality estimation metrics for hybrid translation models would provide a more nuanced alternative to traditional metrics. Finally, deeper economic analyses of the impact of AI on the freelance translation market are crucial for ensuring the sustainability of the profession. By embracing the collaborative potential of the human-AI partnership and focusing on the irreplaceable value of human cognition, the translation profession is not at its end, but at the dawn of a new, technologically enhanced, and ultimately more specialized era.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to all individuals and institutions who have contributed to the completion of this article.

REFERENCES

1. Amini, M., & Ibrahim-González, N. (2024). Navigating the new frontier: The impact of large language models on the translation profession. Journal of Translation Studies, 22(1), 45-67.
2. Castilho, S., Gaspari, F., Moorkens, J., Calixto, I., Tinsley, J., & Way, A. (2017). Is neural machine translation the new state of the art? The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 108(1), 109–120.
3. Da Silva, I. A. L. (2021). The human translator in the loop: A study of the cognitive-affective impact of post-editing [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa]. Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa.
4. Forcada, M. L. (2019). Making sense of neural machine translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 159-179.
5. Gaspari, F. (2023). Perspectives on the future of translation. In M. O’Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology (pp. 535-550). Routledge.
6. Gaspari, F., Toral, A., Naskar, S., Forcada, M. L., & Way, A. (2015). Perception vs reality: Measuring machine translation post-editing productivity. Machine Translation, 29(3–4), 195–215.
7. Guerberof-Arenas, A., & Toral, A. (2022). The impact of NMT on the translation profession and the translator’s role. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 5(2), 184–212.
8. Herbig, N., Pal, S., Krüger, A., & van Genabith, J. (2021). Multi-modal estimation of cognitive load in post-editing of machine translation. In Tra&Co Group (Eds.), Translation, interpreting, cognition: The way out of the box (pp. 1–32). Language Science Press.
9. Kenny, D. (2022). Machine translation for everyone: Empowering users in the age of artificial intelligence. Language Science Press.
10. Pym, A. (2011). What technology does to translating. Translation & Interpreting, 3(1), 1–9.
11. Toral, A., & Sánchez-Cartagena, V. M. (2017). A contrastive evaluation of rule-based and statistical MT systems: A case study with a Spanish-English MT system. Machine Translation, 31(2), 141–176.
12. Vieira, L. N. (2020). Post-editing of machine translation: A study of productivity and quality. Perspectives, 28(4), 629-649.