torek, 22. 9. 2026, od 16. do 19. ure
	spletna platforma ZOOM
	za sodne tolmače, prevajalce, tolmače in druge zainteresirane
	Sonja Cekova Stojanoska

Preberi več

	četrtek, 17. 9. 2026, od 16. do 19. ure
	spletna platforma ZOOM
	za sodne tolmače, prevajalce, tolmače in druge zainteresirane
	Irena Androjna

Preberi več

Evropska unija je leta 2024 glede uporabe sistemov umetne inteligence na različnih področjih sprejela Uredbo o umetni inteligenci (Uredba o UI). Evropska komisija (EK) zdaj pripravlja smernice kot pojasnilo, kako posamezne določbe uredbe uporabljati v praksi. Ena od smernic obravnava tako imenovane visokotvegane sisteme umetne inteligence – sisteme, katerih uporaba lahko pomembno vpliva na pravice posameznikov. Pred dokončnim sprejetjem smernic je EK odprla javno posvetovanje, v katerem so lahko sodelovali strokovnjaki, organizacije in posamezniki.

Zakaj se to tiče prevajalcev in tolmačev?

V DPTS nas skrbi, ker Uredba o UI prevajanja in tolmačenja z umetno inteligenco ne uvršča med visokotvegane dejavnosti. Vemo, da je kakovost programske opreme na tem področju vse boljša, vemo pa tudi, da njeni rezultati niso tako točni kot delo prevajalcev in tolmačev. Prepričani smo, da mora na občutljivih področjih, kot so npr. pravo, upravni postopki, medicina, pregon kaznivih dejanj ali azilni postopki, osredotočenost ostati na tveganjih. Že najmanjša netočnost pri prevajanju ali tolmačenju lahko povzroči veliko škodo, negativno vpliva na poštenost sodnih postopkov, ogrozi spoštovanje načel pravne države in vsem stranem onemogoči poln dostop do pravnega varstva.

Pri prevajanju imajo sistemi UI težave s kompleksnim kontekstom ter niso dovolj dosledni in natančni. Včasih spremenijo trdilne stavke v nikalne ali obratno. Lahko dodajo besedne zveze (halucinacije oz. konfabulacije) ali izpustijo ključne dele stavka ali izjave, imajo težave s slengom in narečji, ne razumejo čustvenega konteksta, v katerem je izjava izrečena, itd. Pri tolmačenju se lahko pri računalniški obdelavi človeškega govora pojavljajo težave, kot so nenaravna prozodija, slaba segmentacija stavkov, nenavaden ritem govora ter nezmožnost razumevanja kontekstualne in čustvene celovitosti občutljivih pripovedi. Sistemi umetne inteligence imajo lahko tudi težave pri razumevanju govorcev z govornimi motnjami, pa tudi govora, na katerega vplivajo močna čustvena stanja, kot so jok, strah, stres, šok ali panika, ki lahko znatno vplivajo na govorjenje in razumljivost.

Kot poklicni jezikoslovci v DPTS zato menimo, da je ključnega pomena, da smernice EK v zvezi z Uredbo o UI pri točkah 6, 7 in 8 Priloge III jasno določijo, da sta prevajanje in tolmačenje z umetno inteligenco visokotvegani dejavnosti.

Kaj je storilo DPTS?

Izvršni odbor (IO) DPTS se je odločil, da bo društvo aktivno sodelovalo v javnem posvetovanju EK. Za pravno analizo osnutka smernic je k sodelovanju povabil zunanjega strokovnjaka za pravo umetne inteligence (Gregor Strojin, Deloitte), nato pa je delovna skupina IO pripravila pripombe z vidika prevajalcev in tolmačev. Poleg skupnega prispevka društva so bili člani organov društva povabljeni, da po želji sodelujejo tudi kot posamezniki in oddajo svoje pripombe.

Kaj smo predlagali?

V svojih pripombah smo predvsem poudarili, da bi morale smernice več pozornosti nameniti uporabi umetne inteligence pri prevajanju in tolmačenju. Med drugim:

1) predlagamo, naj se pojem »avtonomije« iz Uredbe razlaga široko, tako da je uporaba orodij UI za prevajanje in tolmačenje v postopkih preprečevanja, odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj, azilnih in čezmejnih postopkih, upravnih in sodnih postopkih ter demokratičnih procesih vključena med visokotvegane dejavnosti. Sistem umetne inteligence lahko samodejno prevede izjavo, izdela prepis zaslišanja ali pripravi povzetek razgovora. Če tak dokument postane del uradnega spisa, lahko morebitne napake vplivajo tudi na nadaljnje faze postopka, saj se nanj opirajo poznejše odločitve. Tehnologija tako vpliva na pomembne odločitve o ljudeh in odpira resna vprašanja glede varstva osebnih podatkov in zaupnosti, torej gre za orodja z nesprejemljivim tveganjem, ki jim mora evropska zakonodaja postaviti stroge omejitve.

2) Predlagamo, naj se upošteva namen uporabe umetne inteligence. Če prevod, prepis ali povzetek postane del uradnega spisa, lahko vpliva na razumevanje dejanskega stanja in posledično na odločitev v postopku, tudi če gre za »pripravljalne« naloge. Napačen prevod se lahko prenese v nadaljnje faze postopka, kjer se nanj opirajo ključne odločitve.

3) Pozivamo Urad za umetno inteligenco, naj upošteva metodologije ocenjevanja tveganj za človekove pravice (npr. HUDERIA), ki na strukturiran način ocenjujejo tveganja za človekove pravice, demokracijo in vladavino prava. Uporaba takšnih metod pri analizi orodij UI za prevajanje in tolmačenje kaže na veliko verjetnost nastanka in resnost škode v primeru točk 6, 7 in 8 Priloge III k omenjenim smernicam ter podpira izrecno obravnavo teh orodij kot visoko tveganih, ker obstaja velika verjetnost napak in resnih posledic za pravico do poštenega sojenja, pravico do enake obravnave in pravico do zasebnosti. Isto orodje UI za prevajanje ali tolmačenje je lahko pri vsakdanji uporabi netvegano, v kontekstih iz Priloge III pa visokotvegano. Podobno se lahko stopnje tveganja znatno razlikujejo glede na uporabljene jezikovne pare. Smernice bi zato morale obravnavati prevajanje in tolmačenje z umetno inteligenco kot paradigmatičen primer tega, kako kontekst določa stopnjo tveganja.

4) Zato predlagamo, da sta v smernicah prevajanje in tolmačenje z umetno inteligenco, kadar se uporabljata pri pregonu kaznivih dejanj, izrecno obravnavana kot visoko tvegana v skladu s 6. točko Priloge III. Če se uporabljata pri migracijah, azilu in nadzoru meja, ju je treba obravnavati kot visoko tvegana v skladu s 7. točko Priloge III, če se uporabljata v pravosodju in demokratičnih procesih, pa kot visoko tvegana v skladu s točko 8(a) Priloge III.

5) Poleg tega predlagamo, naj bo uporaba umetne inteligence pri prevajanju in tolmačenju pregledna, vključno s podatki o stopnjah natančnosti za posamezne jezikovne pare in vrstah napak, ki naj bodo naročnikom, uvajalcem in končnim uporabnikom teh tehnologij dostopni v ustrezni tehnični dokumentaciji. 

V DPTS menimo, da je bilo posvetovanje EK o osnutku smernic priložnost, da smo opozorili na praktične dileme, nejasne primere uporabe in vprašanja, ki bi lahko vplivala na to, kako se bodo pravila uporabljala v praksi. Hkrati ostaja dejstvo, da je umetna inteligenca lahko samo pomožno orodje. Ključne naloge je namreč treba prepustiti strokovnjakom, ki razumejo ne le jezike, temveč tudi ljudi, kulture in kontekst, v katerem komuniciramo.

DPTS bo tudi v prihodnje spremljalo razvoj evropske zakonodaje na področju umetne inteligence in si prizadevalo, da bodo pri njenem oblikovanju upoštevane tudi posebnosti prevajalskega in tolmaškega poklica. Razvoj umetne inteligence prinaša nove možnosti, hkrati pa odpira pomembna strokovna in etična vprašanja, pri obravnavi katerih želimo kot strokovno društvo dejavno sodelovati.

Ko bo EK javno objavila odgovore na posvetovanje, bomo povezavo objavili na spletni strani DPTS. 

In 2024, the European Union adopted the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), which concerns the use of artificial intelligence systems in various fields. The European Commission (EC) has now drafted guidelines to clarify how the Regulation’s individual provisions should be applied in practice. One of these guidelines addresses the so-called high-risk artificial intelligence systems, which are systems whose use may significantly impact individuals’ rights. Prior to the final adoption of the guidelines, the EC launched a public consultation, inviting experts, organisations and individuals to participate.

Why is this relevant to translators and interpreters?

At Association of Translators and Interpreters of Slovenia (DPTS), we are concerned that the AI Act does not categorise AI-generated translation and interpreting as high-risk activities. While we know that the quality of software products in this field is improving, we also recognise that their accuracy level is not on par with that of human translators and interpreters. We strongly believe that in sensitive areas, such as law, administrative proceedings, medicine, law enforcement and asylum proceedings, the focus should remain on the risks involved. Even the slightest inaccuracy in translation or interpreting can cause great harm, negatively impact fair trials, result in situations where the rule of law is not upheld and all parties do not have full access to justice.

When used for translation, AI systems struggle with complex contexts, lack consistency, and are not sufficiently accurate. Sometimes they change affirmative statements to negative ones, or vice versa. They may add some phrases (hallucinations or confabulations) or omit crucial parts of a sentence or an utterance, have problems with slang and dialects, and fail to understand the emotional context in which an utterance is made. In the field of interpreting, the risks associated with machine processing of human speech include unnatural prosody, poor sentence segmentation and unnatural pacing. There is also a risk of failure to grasp the contextual and emotional integrity of sensitive narratives. AI systems may also struggle to understand speakers with speech impairments or speech affected by strong emotions such as crying, fear, stress, shock or panic, which can significantly affect speech production and intelligibility.

As language professionals at DPTS, we therefore think that it is of utmost importance that the EC guidelines on AI Act risks clearly state in Annex III, points (6), (7) and (8) that AI-generated translation and interpreting are risk-involving activities.

What did DPTS do?

The Executive Committee of DPTS decided to play an active role in the EC consultation process. An external expert in artificial intelligence law (Gregor Strojin of Deloitte) was commissioned to carry out a legal analysis of the draft guidelines. The ExCom working group then drew up comments from the perspective of translators and interpreters. In addition to the association’s joint contribution, members of the association’s governing bodies were invited to participate as individuals and submit their own comments, if they wished.

What did we propose?

In our comments, we emphasised that the guidelines should pay closer attention to the use of AI in translation and interpreting. Specifically, we proposed the following:

1) that the concept of ‘autonomy’ as used in the Regulation be interpreted broadly, to include the use of AI tools for translation and interpretation in law enforcement, asylum and cross-border proceedings, administrative and judicial proceedings, and democratic processes within the scope of high-risk activities. Artificial intelligence can translate a statement, produce a transcript of a hearing or summarise an interview independently. If such a document becomes part of the official record, any errors may also affect subsequent stages of the proceedings, as later decisions are based on it. This technology therefore influences important decisions affecting people and raises serious questions regarding the protection of personal data and confidentiality. It is therefore a tool involving unacceptable risks, which must be strictly restricted by European legislation;

2) that the intended purpose of the AI use be taken into account. If a translation, transcription or summary becomes a part of the official record, it may affect the understanding of the facts of the case and, consequently, the decisions made during the proceedings, even if these tasks are considered ‘preparatory’. An incorrect translation may be carried over into subsequent stages of the proceedings, where key decisions are based on it.

3) We encourage the AI Office to draw on human rights risk assessment methodologies (e.g. HUDERIA), which assess risks to human rights, democracy and the rule of law in a structured way. Applying these methods to AI translation and interpretation tools shows a significant likelihood and severity of harm in Annex III, points (6), (7) and (8). This supports their classification as high risk due to a high likelihood of error and severe impact on fair-trial, non-discrimination and privacy rights. The same AI translation or interpretation tool can pose a low risk in everyday use and a high risk in contexts covered by Annex III. Similarly, risk levels may differ significantly based on the language pairs involved. The guidelines should therefore treat AI‑based translation and interpreting as a paradigmatic example of how context determines risk.

4) We therefore propose that the guidelines explicitly recognise AI‑based translation and interpretation when used in law enforcement as high risk under Annex III (6). When used in border screening, asylum interviews, detention, and return/removal procedures, they must be recognised as high‑risk under Annex III (7), and when used in court proceedings they must be recognised as high‑risk under Annex III (8)(a).

5) We further propose that the eventual use of AI-based translation and interpretation should be transparent and made available to procurers, deployers and end users of such technologies through appropriate technical documentation, including accuracy levels for specific language pairs and error rates.

At DPTS, we believe that the EC consultation on the draft guidelines has presented an opportunity to draw stakeholders’ attention to practical dilemmas and unclear cases of application that could affect how the rules will be applied in practice. At the same time, the fact remains that AI can only ever be an auxiliary tool. The real work must be left to experts who understand not only languages, but also people, cultures and the context in which we communicate.

DPTS will continue to monitor developments in European AI legislation and strive to ensure that the specific characteristics of the translation and interpreting professions be taken into account in its formulation. While the development of AI brings new opportunities, it also raises important professional and ethical questions, in which we, as a professional association, wish to play an active role.

Once the EC has published the responses to its consultation, we will post the relevant link on the DPTS website.