What modern means (systems, programs) can carry out: Accurate, adaptive and artistic translations?

Question

Machine translation from one language to another

Good day to you.
Please recommend: What modern and proven programs or their complexes can perform accurate (literally), adaptive and artistic translations?
Interested in translation from English into Russian and vice versa.
If someone knows universal tools (in several languages, except for Russian and English), I will be, only glad for advice.
Thank you in advance, regards, some well.

Answer 1

No, technology has not yet reached this level.
They say there are very good translators who generally translate everything superbly, but ... not a single one with the Russian language.

Answer 2

Let me quote one interesting quote from 1987. It belongs to the computer linguist Zhuravlev.

Well, let's take a closer look. Not so long ago, two words “iskozh” and “kozhimit” appeared in the language and quickly disappeared. The first meant "artificial leather", and the second - "imitation leather". The word "iskozh" in speech did not take root at all, while kozhimit existed for quite a long time (until chemistry overwhelmed us with such a variety of "kozhimits" that they have neither number nor names). I think that the victory of kozhimit in the competition with artificial (or artificial?) was ensured not only by the best arrangement of the morphological form <...> Apparently, the higher semantic accuracy of the word kozhimit was also felt. Now, if a person with his art created a material that could be engrafted in place of damaged natural skin, and this material would function in the same way, then it would really be artificial skin. <...> And if this is not the case, then it is leatherette.
The words "imitation" and "artificial" are not always so strictly distinguished in our speech. Maybe because the time of everything artificial and imitation of everything, anything, is just beginning and we have not yet thoroughly understood the complexities and subtleties of this process? They say "artificial marble" and "imitation marble", "artificial rain" and "imitation rain". It's about the same. But instead of "artificial irrigation" one cannot say "imitation of irrigation". It turns out that there is no irrigation, but only its appearance is created. The same is "artificial selection" or "artificial satellite". So imitation is more of a fake, an appearance, a deception. Only the external side of the phenomenon is imitated, its essence is not reflected by imitation. For example, imitation of violent activity. As we see,
The author also strives to make the same distinction between the concepts of artificial intelligence (iskint) and imitation of intelligence (intimate), believing that iskint is a fundamentally incorrect name and that it makes sense to talk only about imitint.
What's the matter here? Such an intelligent tool should be, oddly enough, predictable (“the guardian bird” for such artificial intelligences will be once in a million, more often it will be all sorts of garbage like “he went berserk, started to smash everything around - and received a discharge of current”). And therefore, let him make mistakes, but do not try to cognize the world through his limited window. Let him learn only translation patterns.
And a literary translator is generally engaged in one-time truly intellectual tasks - that is, he creates something new. No machine can replace it. Let's say Nora Gal discovered a drop dead nuance of literary translation: translating the gender of a character so that his name matches the gender role. We read her "The Word of the living and the dead."

At the beginning of Saint-Exupery's "Letter to a Hostage" there is an image: Lisbon, as a mother, is weak, defenseless, she, by faith in illusory happiness, is trying to ward off misfortune from her son.
Lisbon is feminine in French. But in Russian... The translator cannot rename the city, even if he desperately needs it! And the young translator did not find a way out in the first journal publication. It was printed like this: “Lisbon smiled with a somewhat forced smile; this is how mothers smile who do not receive news from the front from their son and who are trying to save him with their faith: “My son is alive, since I am smiling…” “Look how happy and calm I am,” said Lisbon, “and well lit… "... festive Lisbon challenged Europe: "Is it possible to make me a target... After all, I'm so defenseless!..."
And the image is gone, it does not convince. Well, what about? It turned out that you can still get out: “And the capital smiled through force ... The capital of Portugal seemed to say: “Look, I am so serene, I am so peaceful and bright ... Is it possible to attack me ... I am so defenseless!” » The capital is nearby and in the original - and here in Russian, without the slightest damage, you can say Lisbon.
It was more difficult to "get out" in "The Little Prince". Here a beautiful flower appeared, its disposition and behavior are clearly feminine. In French, la fleur is feminine. The masculine gender here, for the life of me, is impossible! But at first it is impossible to directly call the flower a rose, the prince does not yet know this. And again, a replacement came to the rescue: an unknown guest, a beauty. In such cases, it is necessary to somehow cheat, dodge, in order to preserve the main thing.