AI Technologies in Language Access: Attitudes Towards AI and the Human Value of Language Access Managers

Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.

AI language technologies (AILTs), increasingly enabled by large language models (LLMs), are becoming embedded in multilingual healthcare workflows for translation, rewriting, documentation, interpreting, and messaging in language-discordant settings. Yet fluent output is not the same as clinically safe or equitable communication: performance varies across languages, accents, tasks, and workflows, and efficiency gains can hide errors, reduce traceability, and shift responsibility across clinicians, translators, interpreters, and health systems. This narrative review synthesises recent peer-reviewed evidence across written communication, spoken communication, and emerging agentic workflows. Using the Human-Centered AI Language Technology (HCAILT) lens, it examines capabilities, evaluation practices, implementation patterns, and recurrent errors through reliability, safety culture, and trustworthiness. We identify key convergences and contradictions in the literature and propose seven grand challenges for the next phase of research and deployment. Progress, we argue, requires not only better models but also accountable sociotechnical design, calibrated human oversight, and stronger collaboration across MT/NLP, translation studies, HCI, clinical practice, implementation science, and policy.

This paper examines how value is constructed and negotiated in today's increasingly automated language and translation industry. Drawing on interview data from twenty-nine industry stakeholders collected within the LT-LiDER project, the study analyses how human value, technological value, efficiency, and adaptability are articulated across different professional roles. Using Chesterman's framework of translation ethics and associated values as an analytical lens, the paper shows that efficiency-oriented technological values aligned with the ethics of service have become baseline expectations in automated production environments, where speed, scalability, and deliverability dominate evaluation criteria. At the same time, human value is not displaced but repositioned, emerging primarily through expertise, oversight, accountability, and contextual judgment embedded within technology-mediated workflows. A central finding is the prominence of adaptability as a mediating value linking human and technological domains. Adaptability is constructed as a core professional requirement, reflecting expectations that translators continuously adjust their skills, roles, and identities in response to evolving tools and organisational demands. The paper argues that automation reshapes rather than replaces translation value, creating an interdependent configuration in which technological efficiency enables human communicative work.