Остаюсь в надежде, что вскорости напишете более содержательный блогопост... Может, даже удастся обсудить...
Кстати, по поводу гугельного транслятора. Они в одной из статей объясняют как проверяют результаты:
We have carried out extensive experiments on many Google-internal production data sets. ... In this section we describe our experiments with human perception of the translation quality. We asked human raters to rate translations in a three-way side-by-side comparison. The three sides are from: 1) translations from the production phrase-based statistical translation system used by Google, 2) translations from our GNMT system, and 3) translations by humans fluent in both languages. Reported here in Table 10 are averaged rated scores for English ↔ French, English ↔ Spanish and English ↔ Chinese. ... On each pair of languages, the evaluation data consist of 500 randomly sampled sentences from Wikipedia and news websites, and the corresponding human translations to the target language. The results show that our model reduces translation errors by more than 60% compared to the PBMT model on these major pairs of languages. ... In some cases human and GNMT translations are nearly indistinguishable on the relatively simplistic and isolated sentences sampled from Wikipedia and news articles for this experiment. Note that we have observed that human raters, even though fluent in both languages, do not necessarily fully understand each randomly sampled sentence sufficiently and hence cannot necessarily generate the best possible translation or rate a given translation accurately. Also note that, although the scale for the scores goes from 0 (complete nonsense) to 6 (perfect translation) the human translations get an imperfect score of only around 5 in Table 10, which shows possible ambiguities in the translations and also possibly non-calibrated raters and translators with a varying level of proficiency. Testing our GNMT system on particularly difficult translation cases and longer inputs than just single sentences is the subject of future work.

Нельзя, конечно, быть до конца уверенными, но, похоже, можно с некоторой степенью ненаучной достоверности заключить, что поиск "
волшебной палочки" не входит в задачи гуглоученых
