Will an automatic interpreter or an augmented interpreter survive the 5th Industrial Revolution?

Abstract

In an inspired speech on how AI impacts the future of work (Griffin 2024), up to 80% of humans is foreseen to become less employable by 2030, with a high number of skills and, thus, professionals being actually replaced by AI (BBC 2018); the only professionals to survive this change will be hand labourers (Griffin 2024). However, AI, like the steam engine before it, is unlikely to signal the end of work (Gregg 2024). Instead, it will merely mark a shift in the skills that the workers of tomorrow will need to thrive (Gregg 2024). In this new landscape, how is the interpreting profession expected to be affected? Following similar trends in translation, computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) (Fantinuoli 2018, Corpas Pastor 2018, Defrancq & Fantinuoli 2021) has been growing over the past ten to fifteen years and reached a decisive peak after the Covid-19 pandemic (Song 2021). Paperless and smart booths, the interpreter’s digital box, including a meeting documentation interface, a front office and a back office, as well as a collaborative space,   remote simultaneous or consecutive interpreting mode and remote interpreting platforms are some of the recent CAI developments (European Commission). The pandemic has not only affected the way interpreters work (less travel, more remote, more CAI tools), their pay (remote work offers organisers access to markets that offer lower rates to interpreters), but there is a widespread rumour that Artificial Intelligence will soon replace human interpreters (Song 2025). However, recent tests using the speech-to-text automatic translation feature were run by Pereira (2024a), after the release of the latest ‘stabilised’ version of Google’s GEMINI, 1.5 Flash. The main findings showed the general inability of AI to process and produce natural language meaning, or analyse and synthesise the speech provided in its entirety. Shortcomings include misinterpretations, sentences left unfinished, inability to maintain the natural sound of the original speech. Similar results have been produced by a test performed with Google’s GEMINI, 2.00 Flash (Pereira 2024b). AI seems to have a hard time replacing human interpreters. While AI translation is cheaper, it comes at the cost of accuracy, logical coherence, and contextual awareness. In crucial fields such as legal, medical, and diplomatic communication, errors in interpreting can lead to legal disputes, medical misdiagnoses, or diplomatic conflicts (Beliakova 2025, Song 2025). However, AI use seems to be very useful in assisting interpreters in the booth. Indeed a key concept when speaking about AI is “Not automate, but augment” (Griffin 2024). The augmented interpreter is in fact the new trend with augmented reality (AR) technology being used in the booth to display numbers and names on a screen or automatically suggest renditions for technical terms (Beliakova 2025, Gieshoff et al. 2024). Does AR actually work out well with interpreters? The findings of a survey among conference interpreters regarding their readiness for digital technologies and artificial intelligence (Chiaming 2024) indicate a cautious openness by interpreters towards technology, balanced by concerns about cognitive load, ethical issues and the impact on traditional skills.