Position Paper: Should Machine Translation be Labelled as AI -Generated Content? (2024)

Abstract: In September 2023, the Government of Canada issued a ‘Guide on the Use of Generative AI’ with recommendations for Canadian government institutions and their employees. As other similar documents published by various organizations in recent years, this document makes recommendations regarding transparency, stating that whenever generative AI is used to produce content, the reader should be informed that “messages addressed to them are generated by AI”. While this guide does not address specifically the case of machine translation, it does mention translation as a potential application of generative AI. Therefore, one question that naturally arises is: Should machine-translated texts be explicitly labelled as AI-generated content wherever they are used? In this position paper, we examine this question in detail, with the goal of proposing clear guidelines specifically regarding MT, not only for government institutions, but for anyone using MT technology to produce new versions of a text. Our main conclusion is that machine-translated text is indeed AI-generated content. As such, it should be explicitly marked everywhere it is used. We make recommendations as to what form this labelling might take. We also examine under what conditions labelling can be removed or omitted.

## introduction in september 2023, the government of canada issued a guide on the use of generative ai 1 , providing "preliminary guidance to federal institutions on their use of generative ai tools". among other things, this document makes recommendations regarding transparency, stating that whenever generative ai is used by canadian government institutions, the users should be informed that "messages addressed to them are generated by ai" (government of @xcite . while the recommendations in this guide are very general and do not target any one specific application of generative ai, the authors explicitly mention language translation as a potential use of these technologies. but they don't go as far as identifying machine-translated text as ai-generated content. of course, machine translation and artificial intelligence are very tightly linked, both historically and technologically. therefore, one question that natu-rally arises is: should machine-translated text be explicitly labelled as ai-generated content wherever it is used? in this position paper, we examine this question in detail, with the goal of proposing clear guidelines specifically regarding machine translation, not only for government institutions, but for anyone using mt technology to produce versions of a text in a language other than the one in which it was initially written. we present the wider context in which this question arises in section 2, then address our fundamental question, as well as several others in section 3. we wrap up with a summary of recommendations in section 4. our main conclusion is that machine-translated text is indeed ai-generated content. as such, it should be explicitly marked everywhere it is used. we make recommendations as to what form this labelling might take. we also examine under what conditions mt labelling can be removed or omitted. ## the wider context: labelling of ai-generated content in its recommendations to canadian federal institutions on the use of generative ai technologies, the guide on the use of generate ai includes guidelines on transparency: "to maintain public trust and ensure the responsible use of generative ai tools, federal institutions should [...] identify content that has been produced using generative ai @xcite notify users that they are interacting with an ai tool". in particular, the guide contains a section about " @xcite istinguishing humans from machines", with specific recommendations to "[i]nform users when messages addressed to them are generated by ai" or to "use watermarks so that users can identify content generated by ai" (government of canada, 2023). these recommendations from the government of canada are not an isolated case. increasingly, there has been pressure on big tech and media to label ai-generated content (abbreviated aigc henceforth). the unesco's 2022 recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence (un-esco, 2022), which was adopted by all 193 member states in november 2021, includes a clause about identifying aigc: 127. member states should ensure that users can easily identify whether they are interacting with a living being, or with an ai system imitating human or animal characteristics @xcite this principle is gradually taking the form of laws and regulations in various places. for example, the european commission (ec) added labelling requirements to its code of practice on online disinformation (european commission, 2022), a voluntary framework of industry self-regulation to fight disinformation, to which most ai actors have already agreed (one notable exception is x, formerly twitter, which pulled out during the summer of 2023). the ec's digital services act (dsa) (european commission, 2024) includes provisions requiring large online platforms to label "manipulated audio and images" (o'carroll, 2023; @xcite . the united states, canada and other countries are expected to adopt similar rules shortly. the united states government has recently convened the major players in ai to adhere to a set of guidelines aimed at ensuring safe, secure, and trustworthy ai. these guidelines specifically include provisions to "[d]evelop and deploy mechanisms that enable users to understand if audio or visual content is ai-generated, including robust provenance, watermarking, or both, for ai-generated audio or visual content." foot_0 a similar code of conduct (innovation, science and economic development canada, 2023) was unveiled in canada in september 2023, instructing companies to "[d]evelop and implement reliable and freely available methods to detect content generated by their systems (e.g., watermarking)" and to "[e]nsure that systems that could be mistaken for humans are clearly and prominently identified as ai systems" @xcite . while legislation and recommendations have mostly focused on audio and video content, it is clear that textual content should not be an exception. generative ai tools based on large language models (llms) have rapidly been identified by analysts as a potential risk for the massive increase of dis-and misinformation. this topic was specifically addressed during a workshop organized by openai, georgetown university's center for security and emerging technology and the stanford internet observatory in october 2021. 3 during this workshop, the question of digital provenance standards was specifically discussed @xcite . the primary goal of aigc labelling is to fight dis-and misinformation, but there is a more general intention to inform users and create a more healthy and transparent social environment where trust can flourish, reflecting the ethical imperative "to not blur the distinction between the categories of human and machine" @xcite . ## the case of machine translation in this document, we ask whether machinetranslated texts should be labelled as ai-generated content wherever they are used. but before we can address this question, we first need to clarify whether mt is aigc. then, assuming it is, whether it is appropriate to label it, and if so, where and how. we address each of these questions (and more) be-low. ## summary of recommendations machine translation is ai-generated content. as such, it is subject to the same recommendations as other aigc. our recommendation is that machine-translated text be systematically labelled everywhere it is used. the label should explicitly say that the content was machine-translated and specify the language from which it was translated; if possible, the label should also provide a link or reference to the original text, as well as pointers to general resources about mt literacy. the only condition under which such a label could be omitted or removed is if the entirety of the affected text has been verified and certified fit-forpurpose, ideally by a professional translator, otherwise by a competent bilingual who accepts full responsibility for the quality and appropriateness of the translation.