Literature review reveals productivity gains but persistent cultural-linguistic blind spots in LLM-assisted Korean OTT localization, highlighting the need for hybrid human–AI workflows.
General-text translation is converging toward near-full automation by large language models (LLMs), yet the translation of OTT multimedia content still demands a deliberately designed division of labor between humans and AI; this asymmetry is the starting point of this review. Korea occupies a distinctive position in this transformation: the global success of Korean content has created an asymmetric, outbound-heavy translation market in which linguistically complex Korean-source material must be localized into dozens of languages at speed, while the domestic language-service industry undergoes a structural shift from human translation to machine-translation post-editing. This paper reviews three research streams that have developed largely in isolation, namely LLM translation quality and automatic evaluation, human–AI collaboration and knowledge-worker productivity, and audiovisual translation, and integrates them through an operations-management input–process–output–outcome framework tailored to the Korean OTT context. The review finds that LLM-based post-editing improves draft quality and productivity, but that honorific register, culture-bound expressions, and speaker-relational meaning, all pervasive in Korean dialogue, lie largely outside current LLM competence. Three testable propositions are derived on how Korean-specific linguistic density conditions the productivity–quality trade-off, and a research agenda is proposed with implications for job redesign and capability development in language service providers, OTT platforms, and language-focused higher education. Designing this division of labor is a management problem before it is a technological one, and its answers lie where language expertise and operations management meet.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soonhui Lee (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: