Translation and data ethics

This paper examines how the labour of translators has been transformed into foundational data capital for the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Translation memories (TM) and parallel corpora preserve a one-to-one correspondence between source and target text and therefore constitute extraordinarily valuable supervised training data for machine translation. The development of statistical machine translation (SMT), neural machine translation (NMT), the Transformer architecture, and multilingual large language models (LLMs) cannot be disentangled from the accumulation of such translation data. And yet, translators' renditions have been bought as deliverables under contract, segmented as technical objects, and processed as "information analysis" data under copyright law -- losing their moral, creative, and economic attribution to the translators who produced them. The paper develops two concepts to capture this process. The first is appropriation without consumption: a mode of use in which works are not read, viewed, or listened to, but only mined for statistical features -- a use that is legitimated under Article 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act. The second is the invisible teacherisation of translators: the process by which translators, through the construction of translation memories, post-editing, and quality assessment, have functioned as teachers of AI without recognition as such. Drawing on the data supply chain that runs from translators through language service providers (LSPs) and platforms to model developers, on a comparative reading of Japanese, European, and United States legal frameworks, on the distinction between open and proprietary AI models, and on the premium status that human-generated data has acquired in the era of model collapse, the paper asks what translators are actually afraid of, and points toward concrete directions for redistributive design.

Building language technologies and conducting NLP research for low-resource languages---particularly when led by native speakers or involving participatory research practices---are often framed as means of addressing inequality, serving local communities, and, at times, contributing to decolonisation. In this paper, we examine recently published NLP and ML papers, focusing on the narratives used to characterise multilinguality, low-resource languages, and underrepresented cultures. We propose a framework for analysing research framings and identify recurring rhetorical patterns that may hinder accountability and constrain equitable knowledge production for---and by---underserved communities. We further assess the evidential basis of assertions regarding community benefit and find that such statements are often weakly supported or left unsubstantiated. Although community ownership and participation are frequently presented as key objectives, our analysis, supported by statistics from the ACL Anthology, suggests that research outputs more often prioritise resource creation and benchmarking---important but distinct goals---over evidence of broader structural change. We conclude by offering practical recommendations to help authors, reviewers, and readers critically assess these assertions and avoid potentially misleading framings.

Despite remarkable progress in machine translation (MT), non-AI communities have raised growing concerns about MT systems, suggesting a noticeable gap between technical advancement and the needs of real-world users. For instance, while NLP researchers focus on benchmark performance, end users care about ethical concerns, trust, reliability, costs, and more. We argue that listening to various user communities is essential so that research efforts would be directed towards the problems that the communities care about. To this end, we present a large-scale analysis, for the first time, that investigates what four stakeholder communities (AI developers, professional translators, language learners, and language service providers) post about MT technology on social media. To do so, we construct a dataset of 79,286 posts and comments from Reddit, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon from 2019 to 2025, and analyse where these communities disagree, and how and why. Overall, we find that communities often disagree, and even show strong conflicts due to polarised sentiments on topics such as translation quality, efficiency, and reliability. This is because these communities approach these topics differently: the AI community frames them as technical and computational problems, while non-AI (user) communities care more about quality nuances, time savings, user trust, and broader social issues.