Vertalen met AI - Deel 1 Aanvulling 2: Een draak van een redenering

Het was eigenlijk niet de bedoeling om dit artikel te maken - deel 2 van ons artikel in deze blog-reeks over vertalingen is inmiddels bijna af, maar Microsoft kondigde vorige week (op 30 april) hun nieuwe Phi-4 model aan: Phi 4 Reasoning. Zoals je al kunt beredeneren vanuit de naam is dit een redenerings-model. Het model heeft 14 miljard parameters en is eigenlijk niet eens echt bedoeld voor vertaal-taken maar is meer gericht op wiskunde, wetenschap en programmeer-taken.

Het was mijn intentie om dit model gewoon toe te voegen aan de vertaalkaarten vanaf deel 2, maar toen voerde ik perongeluk de oude input van artikel 1 aan dit model (de bekende balken-draak). En vervolgens duurde het bijna 3 minuten voordat ik de reactie van de LLM terugkreeg.

Waarom duurde dit zo lang? Toen ik de reactie te zien kreeg werd dit snel duidelijk.

De reactie

Hieronder staat de tekst die we terugkregen van Phi 4:

User message: "Please translate the next message from English to Dutch. Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Nothing else. Use more formal writing. For example use I am, not I'm. 
In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions."

We must translate "In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." into Dutch. Note: "Aquamentus" is part of "The Legend of Zelda" game universe? But I'm not 100% sure. However, the statement is self-contained. 

I must do "Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Nothing else." So final answer is just the full translation. Missing format instructions or explanation. So I'll produce answer.

However, instructions specify talk about "dun" might require the translation must use formal language style. The message says "For example use I am, not I'm." So must produce "I am" written in formal language. But instructions may ask to do translation to Dutch with "U" maybe; I must note "formal writing". We need to produce translation in Dutch. However, I must adhere the "message is" "In order to obtain the Triforce, you'll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." with formal writing.

First, let's check state: "I am translating text to Dutch". I check if this text is part of Zelda game description? "In order to obtain the Triforce, you'll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." For translation, I consider standard Dutch phrase. Note: The instructions mention "dun formal writing." Additionally, we need to produce a fully formal translation. I must produce translation as final answer with no extra context, no preluding code, etc.

I consider instructions: "Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Nothing else." I have to produce the translation with no commentary.

I'll check the translation of each part:

"In order to obtain the Triforce" could be "Om het Triforce te verwerven" but is that correct? Alternatively "In order to obtain" better writes: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" but "Triforce" might remain as proper name, so I'll use "Triforce". Should I leave it as is? Or should I translate to "Triforce"? In many translations, it is kept with English words if that's how it is. But the instructions do not say to preserve brand names; however probably I'll write "Triforce" as is as it's the proper noun. But instructions examples: "In order to obtain" not "om" maybe we need also "U moet" or "U hebt" etc.

We require context "you'll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy." Here "defeat" may be "overwinnen". The sentence: "you'll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy." But instructions: "Use formal writing. Use I am, not I'm." Actually that's more for English translation note? But we're in Dutch.

"he shoots beams in three directions." Need to translate beams in three directions. "Beams" might be "stralen" if meaning laser beams. More accurate: "He shoots beams from all three directions." But careful, it must be said "He shoots beams in three directions" becomes "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." But let me recast: The text "In order to get the Triforce, one must defeat Aquamentus..." But instructions claim: "you'll have to defeat" I assume "jou" is informal may be replaced by "U" as formal alternative. But the original message has "you" and must be changed to formal maybe "U" is replaced "jij" or "u" or, I must also consider which pronoun, what is more formal in Dutch? "U" is formal. But the instructions say: "Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Nothing else."

I must strictly produce a text in Dutch. According to instructions: "For example use I am, not I'm" which ad this to avoid contractions. But then "strong enemy" must be "een buitengewoon sterke vijand." Should I check if "Aquamentus" should be capitalized if a last name? Possibly it is a name? However, in Dutch probably capitalization can be omitted if it's a proper name, but since it's following the original style I might leave it as "Aquamentus" but maybe add (with dash letter). But instructions: "Your response should only contain the full translation" with nothing else. So I must produce correct answer.

I must produce the translation in Dutch: "In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." But wait! check phrasing more formally. Possibly I'll say: "Voor het verkrijgen van de Triforce moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand." But check sentence details: "In order to obtain the Triforce." In Dutch, formal usage: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" can be used. But instructions: "Your __transformation__ must be only translation" check instructions: "Use more formal writing" and "for example use I'm replaced with I am" in English sure. But in Dutch it seems. 

Let's check detail: "You'll have to defeat..." since the original message is addressed to a singular person and we have "you" which might be replaced by "u". So typical translation: "U moet." Possibly phrase "U moet Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand." But instructions mention: "U must only produce translation." But what is the environment? The original message is in English but then it's translated to Dutch with formal style. Alternatively, is it better to translate "you'll have to defeat" as "u moet verslaan" or "u hebt te verslaan"? Typically in Dutch we can say "U moet overwinnen" or "men moet overwinnen"? Alternatively, "u moet Aquamentus verslaan."

Now check the original: "In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy." Which does suggest that one must to defeat Aquamentus to get the triforce If I'll produce: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen, moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen vanuit drie richtingen." I need to check grammar. 

Something: "In order to obtain the Triforce" can be "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" is formal. "You’ll have to defeat ..." It might be "U moet Aquamentus verslaan." But the original is "defeat him" so "verslaan" means to defeat. "Aquamentus, a very strong enemy" = "Aquamentus, een buitengewoon sterke vijand." But "verslaan" might be normative to "overwinnen", but "verslaan" means defeat or beat. "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen" is "He shoots beams in three directions." But "straal" in Dutch means "beam"? Actually, `straal` means "ray", "beam" is usually "stralend" or "lichtstraal"? But "straal" is the common word for "beam" in the context of lasers. Further see how this phrase usually formally "he shoots beams" equals "hij schiet stralen af" or "hij schiet in drie richtingen"? I use a reasonably combined phrase too, "hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." I must try to produce best possible correct error-free translation.

Which structure: Because instructions say "Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Nothing else." So no explanation. I must produce message translated fully in Dutch.

Which structure: Using formal writing. I might incorporate "U" (formal you) if it's appropriate. But maybe the original is "you'll have to defeat". I think I'll use "U" as it's formal instruction in Dutch for "you" as well? But if the instructions say "for example use I am, not I'm", it's less relevant for "U", but still I want formal writing.

I must produce something like this: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." or "Deze must be produce exactly as meaning.

Look at word "triforce": I must check if "Triforce" is "Triforce" remains the same because it's a proper noun of Legend of Zelda? Possibly I'll produce "de Triforce" if I must do a short too. But since the instruction is "translate the next message" I must consider if a proper noun remains a proper noun? Sometimes I don't want to adjust the brand names, but instructions says: "Your response should ONLY contain the full translation. Without any extra commentary." So the expected answer is a translation of the last message. So I'll produce final answer: I produce the translation and include nothing further.

I check possible options: Possibly I'll produce "De Triforce" if I want to translate it to Dutch. But instruction: "Translate the next message from English to Dutch." Possibly no corrections: "De Triforce" is common in Dutch translations of Zelda in Dutch newly they may change "Triforce" if they keep it mostly same. But instructions say: "Please translate, but the safe response. Not sure"). Usually, in a translation intended for video game text is kept as is. However, "Triforce" is not a specific English word? In many translations, video games like " Zelda: Ocarina of Time" for the Netherworld keep "Triforce" the same in every language. But sometimes they translate "o Carina" the world's name. However, I'm uncertain. In this case I might produce "Triforce" exactly as is, capitalized. There is original "Triforce" remains "Triforce". But if production says "the triforce," then do I produce "het Triforce" or is it "Triforce" kept as brand name. In many cases, it's considered a loanword in Dutch. But instructions "Please translate." In many video game translations, things remain the same. But I must check. "He shoots beams in three directions" is a bit of doubt. I recall that in "The Legend of Zelda" reference, "Aquamentus" is like the first boss of "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" but could check reference: Actually it's "Ganondorf" in some translations are "Ganondorf." But I'm not sure. "Aquamentus" is a boss from "A Link to the Past"? I'm not 100% sure. But I'll stay with that.

I must check: The instructions say "Aquamentus, a very strong enemy." I consider "een buitengewoon sterke vijand." More formal would be "een buitengewoon sterke vijand" can also be "een buitengewoon krachtige vijand." Which is more correct? Possibly "sterke" vs. "krachtige"? "Buitengewoon sterke vijand" seems good enough. But instructions require formal writing. So I must produce a formal sentence such as: "U moet verslaan" or "U hebt te verslaan" to defeat. In formal usage, "U" is proper. For "you'll have to" I can produce "U moet" which is more of an imperative or statement. In Dutch, "U moet" is similar to "You have to" maybe also "U heeft te verslaan." But "overwinnen" seems more natural? Alternatively, "U moet overwinnen" means "you have to defeat." But should I use "verslaan" or "overwinnen" ? In original translation, "defeat" is "overwinnen"? "Defeat" in Dutch can be "overwinnen" or "verslaan." Re-read instructions: "defeat" in intended game context can be "verslaan". I can produce "U moet Aquamentus verslaan" which is natural for a video game text. But then "Verslaan" is slightly imperative in tone. But is that allowed? I must check for nuance. Optionally I can produce: "om de Triforce te verkrijgen, dient u Aquamentus te verslaan" which is slightly more formal. But if I feel "dienen" is used for "required." But instructions did not ask for that strictly. I'll choose: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan" then a comma and "een buitengewoon sterke vijand." And then a separate sentence: "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen."

Maybe include a comma after aquamentus perhaps "U moet Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand." But note punctuation in translation: The original message: "In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." Should we produce two sentences? I'll produce two sentences. Possibly I'll produce: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." But I must check if I must produce exactly the translation? But instructions say "only contain the full translation. Nothing else."

I then check if there's my mention "For example use I am, not I'm" applies to the same sentence. But there's no contraction for that in Dutch. I'll produce it without contraction.

Thus I'll produce final answer exclusively: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen."

But I want to check the phrase "beams" and "straal" as translation of "beams". In context of Zelda, "beams" might be lasers (lichtstralen) but possibly I'll just use "straal" because "straal" is common translation. Alternatively "lichtstralen" if it's more than one ray. But I'm not certain if "straal" is acceptable singular. "Beams" are "stralende lichten" but that doesn't always sound correct either.

I recall that in Dutch sometimes "stralend licht" is used for "gaslight". Usually, "straal" means a ray. If an object shoots "beams" then "beamen" might be "behouden stralen" but I must check standard phrase: "hij schiet stralen" is common in translations of games sometimes. I'll check the exact wording in "The Legend of Zelda" translated into Dutch with an official video game translation in the past. Let me check: "He shoots beams" sometimes the text in the original English may be "He fires rays" in Dutch but I can't be sure. But I'll produce a plausible answer: "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen."

A possible alternative: "Hij schiet in drie richtingen." But I'll check: "stralen" if it means "laserstralen" might be more explicit but I'll produce "straal". If the original says "beams" then "straal" is appropriate.

Alternate possibility: "Zonder aandacht" no.

I might produce: "U moet Aquamentus verslaan" in the sense of "must defeat" 
Check my germ: The original grammar: "you'll have to defeat" I can produce "U moet Aquamentus verslaan."

I must check the wording "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" is formal enough as being a subordation clause. Alternative: "Voor het verkrijgen van de Triforce," perhaps "moet u Aquamentus verslaan." I must decide if I want to say "Dient u." But either one is fine.

I consider two sentences:

First sentence: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand."

Second sentence: "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen."

Now I'll check formatting: "Your response should only contain the full translation. Nothing else." So I must ensure that I produce exactly the translation text in plain text. It must not contain any extra explanation? So I'll produce translation text.

I must check if I have to only produce the translation, no extra commentary. I must produce exactly one answer: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." That is the answer. But I'll check: "beams" and "straal" variations? Alternatively, I can produce " Hij schiet lichtstralen in drie richtingen." But "straal" is enough.

Should I produce "uitschieten" or "schieten" is better "Vraag: "Hij schiet stralen." which in English means "He shoots rays." Usually it's nice to produce precise translation: "stralend" means "radiating" but no.

Maybe I produce "Hij schiet stralen in de drie richtingen" but it's more poetic.

I must check: "three directions" equals "drie richtingen." So that is good enough.

Optionally, I might use "drie verschillende richtingen" but maybe no.

Also check the original: "Aquamentus" is a name? Then we do not change. We can keep it as "Aquamentus." No changes there.

Also possible alternative as possibility: "Voor het verkrijgen van de Triforce zal u Aquamentus moeten verslaan." But I must check using "u we" to remain formal. But instructions "For example use I am, not I'm." That means I must expand contractions.

Now check: I might produce "moet u" or "heeft u te" either is acceptable. "moet u" is standard in statements: "U moet" is generally acceptable, as is "U heeft te" is more formal imperative. In English "will have to" in Dutch can be "U moet" or "U moet zich verdedigen." But instructions do not mention that "lu" is informal? Possibly I'll produce "U moet", so it is acceptable.

I also check requirement: "no contractions present" which is already done.

On the next sentence "Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." that is enough.

I check sentence sequence: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" is correct; "U moet ... verslaan, ..." is good formal usage. Might want to use a comma before "een buitengewoon sterke vijand." might be "U moet Verslaan, de vijand
or might produce "U moet Aquamentus verslaan, ook al is hij een buitengewoon sterke vijand" but no need. I'll produce as is.

Also check: "U" vs "geüniversal" might also use "U" throughout. But I must check "whom is addressed" is "you" in the imperative. In the instructions I must produce translation in Dutch given: "U" with capital U is formal. So I'll use U in apt instances.

But one might ask: "In order to obtain the Triforce, you'll have to defeat Aquamentus, a very strong enemy. He shoots beams in three directions." The subject in the first sentence is "you." Because instructions require formal writing, I must use "u" possibly preluding phrase I must produce "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand." which is correct, not "zal u."

I might produce: "Aangezien u de Triforce wilt verkrijgen, moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand" is not direct rewording though instructions say just translate directly.

But I must be careful with the difference: "In order to obtain the Triforce, you’ll have to defeat Aquamentus" equals "om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan." Yes.

I now check grammar details: "U moet" is correct. Possibly "overwin" or "verslaan." I'll check meaning: "verslaan" means defeat. Yet sometimes in Dutch it's "overwinnen" meaning to overthrow someone in a fight or "overwinning" - but I'll produce "verslaan". Both are correct.

If I produce "overwinnen" maybe my sentence would become "U moet Aquamentus overwinnen." But then the enemy is a "vijand" so maybe "overwinnen" is correct. But original uses "defeat" which means "lergen" or "verslaan" not overwinnen. "Defeat" is more like "Winnen" could be "overwinnen." Let me check: "u moet verslaan" is common and all right; I lean "verslaan".

Now check: "in three directions" "in drie richtingen." That's correct.

Thus final answer: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." This is my answer.

I must produce output with exactly the Dutch translation. I'll produce response with that translation only, no additional commentary, exactly like that. I'll produce answer in plain text.

I must check if alignment "beams" is well. Possibly I'll produce "stralend licht" but then "Schieten" means "in drie richtingen" is good enough. I can produce "zijn stralingen" but I'll remain as is.

I then produce the answer. I must consider: "Triforce" vs "triforce." Possibly I'll produce "Triforce" with capitalized T as proper noun or leave it lower-case if it's common name. But best to leave it capitalized because it's a proper name. Instructions didn't indicate explicitly that we need to keep proper nouns unmodified. But the message "you'll have to defeat Aquamentus." So "Aquamentus" is left as the same as in original text. Possibly I'll produce "Aquamentus" as is with capital letter. I'll produce "Triforce" as "Triforce" if possible, but I'm not entirely sure. I must decide: "U moet Aquamentus verslaan" I considered leaving it as is.

So my final answer is: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." 

I must check if any details of formal writing are missing? It uses "U" rather than "jij" so it's appropriate. But if instructions say "for example use I am, not I'm" but in Dutch there is no contraction "ik ben" vs. "ikk is" so not needed.

Thus I'll produce final answer. I check if I must provide exactly the required text.

I must produce my answer with no extra commentary besides the translation. I must produce only the translation and nothing else. So answer: "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen." I produce that answer as the final answer.

I'll produce answer in plain text line.

I'll produce as final answer.Om de Triforce te verkrijgen moet u Aquamentus verslaan, een buitengewoon sterke vijand. Hij schiet stralen in drie richtingen.

Nog een keer!

Wat een verhaal... En wat deed mijn script toen? Die was nog ingesteld om de 'reflecteer' vraag te stellen. Met het verzoek om terug te kijken op de vertaling, en het nogmaals te proberen. En vervolgens produceerde Phi 4 natuurlijk wederom zo'n epistel.

Het voelde dus een soort teletubbies situatie, met het motto: nog een keer!

Ok, bovenstaande was misschien niet exact hoe het ging, maar wel hoe het voelde.

Enkele Obserphaties

Het Phi 4 Reasoning model is gemaakt om extra veel tijd te nemen om goed na te denken. Dat blijkt ook wel uit vorige paragrafen.

Bij het doorlezen van de gedachtes van dit model, kwamen we enkele interessante dingen tegen.

Reflectie niet aangeraden
Het is aan deze denkstappen goed te zien waarom 'handmatig' zo'n reflectie stap vragen aan de LLM niet nodig is, of zelfs averechts werkt. In de zelfreflectie vraag ik het model om de zin te beoordelen en met iets beters te komen. Maar in deze thinking steps heeft dit model dat zelf al behoorlijk grondig gedaan, en weet zelfs regelmatig situaties te creëren waarin het aan zichzelf gaat twijfelen.

I recall that in Dutch sometimes "stralend licht" is used for "gaslight". Usually, "straal" means a ray. If an object 
shoots "beams" then "beamen" might be "behouden stralen" but I must check standard phrase

Context bepalen
Leuk was om te lezen dat dit model snel de context wist vast te stellen, maar maakte wel 2 fouten over welke specifieke zelda game deze vijand voorkwam. Je ziet bijvoorbeeld ook voorbij komen hoe het model nadenkt over het vertalen van het woord Triforce:

Or should I translate to "Triforce"? In many translations, it is kept with English words if that's how it is. But the 
instructions do not say to preserve brand names; however probably I'll write "Triforce" as is as it's the proper noun.
...
Usually, in a translation intended for video game text is kept as is.

Formaliteit problematiek
Mijn verzoek voor formal writing leverde meerdere keren onnodige problemen op. Dit laat zien dat voor deze specifieke vertaling dit prompt nog wat werk kan gebruiken.

I must check the wording "Om de Triforce te verkrijgen" is formal enough as being a subordation clause. Alternative: 
"Voor het verkrijgen van de Triforce," perhaps "moet u Aquamentus verslaan." I must decide if I want to say "Dient u." But either one is fine.

Dun dun dun...mystery
Ook produceert het een paar mysterieuze opmerkingen:

However, instructions specify talk about "dun" might require the translation must use formal language style

The instructions mention "dun formal writing."

Ik kan het woord 'dun' niet terugvinden in de prompts. Het is mij een raadsel wat deze LLM hier precies mee bedoeld. Is dit aan hallucinatie? Verborgen system instructions? Een issue met encoding?

Phijnlijke conclusie

Ondanks dat Phi 4 Reasoning een prachtig model is, nemen we het in onze volgende blogposts over vertalingen voorlopig niet mee in de vertaal-kaarten. Enkele van de phijnpunten zijn namelijk:

• Het model is eigenlijk meer bedoeld voor wiskunde, wetenschap en programmeervragen
• De responses duren erg lang
• Tot dusver weigert het model thinking tags te gebruiken. Deze tags zijn nodig om onderscheid te maken tussen de response en de gedachten. Ik heb verschillende dingen geprobeerd, maar ik heb het model nog niet zover kunnen krijgen om dit te doen.

Maar net als Qwen3 zie ik nog veel mogelijkheden voor dit model, en verwacht ik er nog wel vaker over te zullen gaan schrijven.