@ddelemeny @silverpill The confidence comes from an asymmetry I suspect many non-native speakers will recognize: I can read English much better than I can write it.

When I write in English on my own, I often know, as I'm writing, that something is off—that the sentence doesn't carry the weight I intended, or that the nuance I wanted is somewhere between the words I've chosen. I just don't always know how to fix it. When I write in Korean first and then work with an LLM, I can read the result and check it against what I meant. Sometimes I'll see a phrase and think: yes, exactly that, I didn't know how to get there myself. That moment of recognition is the verification step.

So I'm not trusting the machine blindly. I'm using my reading ability—which is reasonably good—to audit an output that my writing ability couldn't have produced alone. It's an imperfect process, but it's not as unmoored as handing a text to a system and walking away.

Your point about polyglot authors is well taken. The tool works better when the person using it can actually evaluate what it produces. I'd agree that's a meaningful distinction.

@hongminhee @silverpill I see. One personal reason I don't want to rely on translators and prefer the "hard" way, is that I believe my reading and understanding is sharpened by my attempts at writing. That's the essence of the "immersion in a language" argument for me, and I have experienced it several times (positively by being immersed in English and Spanish speaking cultures, and negatively by lack of it in German and Korean). Do you relate to that ?

@hongminhee@hollo.social do you think your writing skills will improve with continued reading of the LLM-reflected translations, to the point where you may no longer need it?