Is AI "shooting the messengers"?

Hi! I’ve been thinking—has technology, over the centuries, consistently "shot the messenger"? With AI transforming translation and the role of translators, is it making them obsolete? What do you think? Can we draw parallels with other technological advancements throughout history?

That’s an interesting way to put it—technology as the executioner of messengers. I see where you’re coming from, and AI translation does seem to be reshaping the role of translators. But I wouldn’t say it’s making them obsolete. If you look at history, technology rarely wipes out a profession entirely. It tends to change it instead.

I don’t know. It feels different this time. AI is automating so much of the work that used to require human skill. Translators aren’t just adapting—they’re being replaced in a lot of cases. Isn’t that a more existential threat than, say, what scribes faced when the printing press came along?

I get why it feels that way, but think about the printing press. Sure, it "killed" the need for most scribes, but it also created a boom in literacy, publishing, and new intellectual professions. Writing didn’t disappear—it evolved. The same thing happened with industrialization. Artisans lost jobs, but new industries and roles emerged.

But those changes took time. What about the people who were displaced in the meantime? It’s not like scribes or artisans just woke up one day with new jobs waiting for them. And with AI, the pace of change is so much faster. Do you really think translators have time to adapt before they’re completely replaced?

That’s a fair point. The speed of AI development is definitely a challenge. But I don’t think it’s a death sentence for translators. High-stakes work—like legal, literary, or diplomatic translation—still needs human nuance and judgment. AI can handle routine tasks, but it struggles with cultural context, irony, or emotional depth. Translators might shift to roles like post-editing or curating AI translations instead of doing everything from scratch.

Maybe, but that still feels like a downgrade. Translators go from being creators to being editors for a machine. Doesn’t that take away some of the artistry and skill that made the profession meaningful in the first place?

I see what you’re saying, but isn’t that true of most technological shifts? Photographers had to adapt when digital cameras came along, and painters had to find new roles when photography replaced portraiture. It’s not necessarily a downgrade—it’s just different. The question is whether translators can find ways to make the new roles meaningful.

I guess that depends on how much we value the quality of communication itself. Technology has made communication faster, sure, but has it made it better? AI translations might be efficient, but do they really capture the emotional depth or cultural nuance that human translators bring?

That’s a tough one. Technology definitely prioritizes speed and efficiency over emotional depth. Look at how communication has evolved—emails replaced handwritten letters, and now we send quick texts instead of long, thoughtful messages. AI translation is just another step in that direction. It gets the job done, but it’s not the same.

Exactly. And I think we’re losing something important in the process. A handwritten letter or a live conversation feels so much more personal than a quick text or an automated response. Do you think this loss of human connection is inevitable as we rely more on technology?

I don’t think it’s inevitable, but it’s a risk. When communication is automated, it can feel less personal. A handwritten note carries emotional weight that a templated AI response just can’t replicate. The same goes for live translation—there’s a trust and connection that machines can’t replace. But I don’t think it’s all bad. Technology can enhance communication if we use it thoughtfully.

That’s a big "if," though. It feels like we’re designing technology to prioritize convenience over connection. Are we really gaining more than we’re losing?

That depends on what we value. If speed and accessibility are the goal, then yes, we’re gaining a lot. But if we value emotional richness and human connection, we need to rethink how we’re using technology. The real question is: Are we letting technology serve us, or are we reshaping ourselves to fit technology?

I think we’re doing a bit of both, honestly. And I’m not sure we’re always aware of the trade-offs we’re making. Maybe the key is finding a balance—using technology to enhance communication without losing the human touch.

I agree with that. It’s not about rejecting technology but about being intentional with it. If we can strike that balance, we might find that technology doesn’t have to "shoot the messenger"—it can empower them instead.