Comparative analysis reveals disparities in audiovisual translation accuracy of Arabic and Hebrew in conflict settings, highlighting AI's potential benefits.
The field of translation is constantly and profoundly changing due to advances in new technologies and revolutionary forms of communication. One of the advances is artificial intelligence, which is perceived by some translators as a potential threat to the profession, while regarded by others as a valuable tool that can enhance productivity and efficiency. This study aims to examine the accuracy of human and AI audiovisual translations from Arabic and Hebrew into English within the context of conflict. This study is particularly significant given the limited scholarly attention devoted to evaluating the accuracy of AI-generated translations in comparison to human translations, especially within the audiovisual domain. Furthermore, it addresses a critical gap in the literature concerning the translation accuracy of under-researched languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, with an emphasis on comparative analysis between the two. Additionally, this research contributes to the scarce body of work exploring translation practices within conflict settings, with specific reference to the ongoing Gaza-Israel conflict. The analysis included 10 Arabic and 10 Hebrew videos translated into English and posted on X (formerly Twitter) during the 2023 Gaza-Israel conflict. The methods of analysis employed a qualitative approach, incorporating bilingual review, human scoring, and interviews. The process involved the participation of two professional Arabic-English translators and two professional Hebrew-English translators. The findings revealed significant disparities in translation accuracy, with AI-generated Hebrew-English translations demonstrating higher levels of accuracy than their Arabic–English counterparts, and with human Arabic-English translations being predominantly inaccurate
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abeer Alfaify (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: