以下为Melantha译复旦MTI2026英译汉真题
原文：But let us not be naive: Overlooking for a moment how technically difficult augmentation is. Any augmentation of current human cognitive ability is accompanied by an array of challenging questions, some of which were alluded to earlier: Could access to data on cognitive and affective states be misused by companies and cyber-criminals? Would only those who could afford it be able to access augmentation tools? Or, on the flip side, would only those who could afford it be able to switch of such monitoring? Would augmented translation mean that more mis- or dis-information could be disseminated throughout the world via translation? Would augmentation level the playing field more, such that professional translators no longer have an advantage over either the machine or the untrained translator? As Heer (2019) reflects, users of Al-driven systems may become overly reliant on them, leading to a potential loss of critical/ engagement and domain expertise. Is this likely? What is the cost of the necessary trade offs and are the advantages worth it? There are so many questions to consider as we progress technologically.
Melantha译（下同）：但忧心这一切许是一厢情愿，为时过早。技术层面的重重挑战如今得先搁置一旁，因为任何对人类认知能力的升级，都伴随着一系列更棘手的问题，其中部分已在前文有所涉及：与用户认知与情感状态相关的数据，是否有遭到企业或网络犯罪分子滥用的风险？赋能工具是否只有购买力足够的人才能使用？抑或反过来，只有拥有购买力的人，才具备选择关闭监控数据的权力？经由机器强化的翻译，是否会借助翻译之手（状语提纯），令错误信息与虚假信息更加大行其道，蔓延至全球？增强技术是否会抹平竞争的差距，使职业译者相对于机器或非专业译者的优势荡然无存？赫尔（Heer；2019）如是说：使用人工智能系统（名词变成动词），或许会对其产生过度依赖，进而导致批判性思维钝化，致使专业储能流失。这种担忧是否切实？享受技术赋能的价值，这其间代价几何？是否会导致得不偿失、舍本逐末？技术浪潮滚滚向前，悬而未决的问题却已堆积如山。
冷不丁开头型：对前文内容稍做推理。
"But let us not be naive"是一个转折，前文或许在讨论强化翻译（augmented translation）的好处或潜力，以及在技术上的挑战，然后这里话锋一转，表达即便技术实现了，还有更多更深层的问题。
理清楚基本主题和概念：推理此处augmentation tools 和 augmentation指的是什么。一般英文里都喜欢用抽象的名词来总结整体概念，从各个维度延伸思考，推断出这里指人类认知能力的增强/升级/强化/赋能。因此得出初步结论，此文本讨论的是AI辅助翻译的未来，instead of用机器完全替代人类译者，聚焦用技术增强、扩展人类译者的能力。大背景内熟于心，下笔就不容易出错。
本文风格：因为是较为严肃的技术与道德话题，整个文本呈现出一种不容置疑的硬文本风格，文本类型是学术评论性论文，需要在正式和规整的基础上体现出较为清晰的辩证逻辑和些许词语上的柔情于文采，对应文本的机械与心灵。
In a human-centered augmented translation paradigm, the machine is neither mean nor meek, and we have no need of antagonistic dualisms. As Haraway writes: Intense pleasure in skill, machine skill, ceases to be a sin, but an aspect of embodiment. The machine is not an it to be animated, worshiped and dominated. The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries, we are they.
在赋能翻译范式中，主体依旧为人，我们无需沉溺于非此即彼的对立想象: 机器既非强横的宰制者，亦非温驯的附庸。正如哈拉维所写：对新技术——机器技术——感到欣喜若狂，已不再是一种罪孽，而是具身存在的一个缩影。机器不再是一个"它"，等待着被赋予灵魂、等待着被顶礼膜拜、等待着被人类征服驯化。机器是我们自己，是我们思考运作的过程，是我们具身存在的延伸。我们能够担负起管理机器的责任；它们既不统治，也不威胁。我们划定边界，我们即是边界。
Accepting the narrowing of relationships between human and machine is a challenge for those in the world of translation, whether that be the academic discipline of translation studies or the commercial translation profession. The HCAl focus on intelligence amplifcation (IA) rather than on replacement of human ability, on a move from emulation to empowerment, is pointing the way forward.
对于翻译界中的人而言，无论是翻译研究这一学术领域，还是商业翻译这一职业实践，接受人与机器之间日益弥合的关系，本身即构成了不可回避的张力。以人为主体的人工智能所倡导的，是强化人类智能（IA）而非替代人类智能，是从模拟效仿走向赋权增能，因此，前路未明，去向已定。
