This paper investigates how automatic translation (AT) technologies, including neural machine translation (NMT) and Gen-AI (e.g., ChatGPT), are reshaping the creative agency and professional identity of translators. While prior research has explored the impact of automation on translation quality and labor conditions, little attention has been paid to how it reconfigures translation as meaningful creative work. We draw on 110 narrative interviews with professionally trained translators across Europe. Findings show that AT promotes a utilitarian ‘value-for-art-extraction’ model, instrumentalizing creativity for speed, efficiency, and market demands. Yet, translators reassert their agency, creative authorship, and professional values through four interrelated mechanisms that foreground the relational nature of creative work. Rather than pursuing creativity as pure ‘art-for-art's-sake’, translators exercise aesthetic and interpretive judgment through socially embedded engagements with clients, communities, and technologies. These mechanisms include: (1) working closely with clients to tailor translations to communicative and cultural contexts through a distinctly human touch; (2) engaging in human–machine co-creation that enhances, rather than replaces, human input; (3) transforming post-editing tasks, often dismissed as scum work, into sites of interpretive and creative control; and (4) participating in professional communities of practice where ethical and creative strategies are collectively developed. These relational practices position AT as tools that complement and expand, rather than diminish, the aesthetic and interpretative autonomy of translators’, reaffirming translation as a human-centered meaningful creative work.
AlacovskaA. (2018). Informal creative labour practices: A relational work perspective. Human Relations, 71(12), 1563–1589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718754991
2.
AlacovskaA. (2020). From passion to compassion: A caring inquiry into creative work as socially engaged art. Sociology, 54(4), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520904716
3.
AlacovskaA.BucherE.FieselerC. (2025). Algorithmic Paranoia: Gig Workers’ Affective Experience of Abusive Algorithmic Management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 40(3), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12317
4.
AnantrasirichaiP.BullD. R. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in the Creative Industries: A Review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1), 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7
5.
Armstrong, B., Chen, V. K., Cuellar, A., Forsey-Smerek, A., & Shah, J. A. (2024). Automation from the worker's perspective: How can new technologies make jobs better? MIT Industrial Performance Center.
BanksM. (2007). The Politics of Cultural Work. Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BanksM. (2010). Craft labour and creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 305–321.
9.
BassnettS. (2016). Translation and creativity. In Hennard Dutheil de la RochèreM.Weber HenkingI. (Eds.), La traduction comme création / translation and creativity (pp. 39–61). Centre de Traduction Littéraire de Lausanne.
BeckerH. (1982). Art Worlds. University of California Press.
12.
BergerR. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
13.
BlumerH. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
14.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
15.
BrglezM.VintarŠ (2022). Lexical diversity in statistical and neural machine translation. Information, 13(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13020093
16.
CadwellP.O'BrienS.TeixeiraC. S. (2018). Resistance and accommodation: Factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives, 26(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1337210
17.
CohenN. (2019). Gigged: The End of the Job and the Future of Work. University of California Press.
18.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
19.
FilimowiczM. (2023). AI and the Future of Creative Work: Algorithms and Society. Routledge.
FuL.LiuL. (2024). What are the differences? A comparative study of generative artificial intelligence translation and human translation of scientific texts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03726-7
24.
GentzlerE. (2001). Expanding horizons or limiting growth?Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 13(1), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.1.13gen
25.
GioiaD. (2021). A systematic methodology for doing qualitative research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320982715
26.
GiustiniD. (2024). ‘You can book an interpreter the same way you order your uber': (re)interpreting work and digital labour platforms. Perspectives, 32(3), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2298910
27.
GiustiniD.DastyarV. (2024). Critical AI literacy for interpreting in the age of AI. Interpreting and Society, 4(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523810241247259
28.
GlaserB. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in methodology of grounded theory. Sociological Press.
29.
GöpferichS. (2018). Standardisation of language and communication. In HabscheidS.MüllerA. P.ThörleB.WiltonA. (Eds.), Handbuch sprache in organisationen (pp. 186–200). De Gruyter.
30.
GrbićN.KujamäkiP. (2018). Professional vs non-professional?: How boundary work shapes research agendas in translation and interpreting studies. In DamH.BrøggerM.ZethsenK. (Eds.), Moving boundaries in translation studies (pp. 113–131). Routledge.
31.
Guerberof-ArenasA.ToralA. (2022). Creativity in translation: Machine translation as a constraint for literary texts. Translation Spaces, 11(2), 184–212. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21025.gue
Jimenez-CrespoM. A. (2024). Transcreation in translation and the age of human-centred AI: Focusing on “human” creative touch. In KostopoulouL.CharalampidouP. (Eds.), New perspectives in Media translation: Transcreation in the digital age (pp. 309–320). Springer.
37.
Jiménez-CrespoM. A. (2025). Human-Centered AI and the future of translation technologies: What professionals think about control and autonomy in the AI era. Information, 16(5), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16050387
38.
KennyD.WintersM. (2020). Machine translation, ethics and the literary translator’s voice. Translation Spaces, 9(1), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00024.ken
39.
KoehnP. (2009). Statistical machine translation. Cambridge University Press.
40.
KushnerS. (2013). The freelance translation machine: Algorithmic culture and the invisible industry. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812469597
LaaserK.KarlssonJ. C. (2024). The politics of working life and meaningful waged work. Cambridge University Press.
43.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2016). Algorithms that divide and unite: Delocalization, identity, and collective action in ‘microwork’. In J. Flecker (Ed.), Space, place and global digital work (pp. 53-80). Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
45.
MackenzieR. (1998). The place of language teaching in a quality-oriented translators’ training programme. In MalmkjærK. (Ed.), Translation and language teaching (pp. 15–19). St Jerome.
46.
MalmkjærK. (2019). Translation and creativity. Routledge.
47.
McRobbieA. (2016). Be creative: Making a living in the new culture industries. Polity.
48.
MoorkensJ. (2020). A tiny cog in a large machine” digital taylorism in the translation industry. Translation Spaces, 9(1), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00019.moo
49.
MuszyńskiK.PulignanoV. (2024). Platform economy, self-employment and quality of work: An assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic. In ConenW.ReuterE. (Eds.), Research handbook on self-employment and public policy (pp. 421–438). Edward Elgar Publishing.
PerteghellaM.LoffredoE. (Eds.). (2006). Translation and creativity: Perspectives on creative writing and translation studies. Continuum Books
52.
PulignanoV.DomeckaM. (2025). The Politics of Unpaid Labour: How the study of unpaid labour can help address inequality in precarious work. Oxford University Press.
53.
PulignanoV.MuszyńskiK.TapiaM. (2024). Variations of Freelancers’ “effort-bargain” experiences in platform work: The role of skills. ILR Review, 77(5), 742–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939241268165
54.
PymA. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defense of a minimalist approach. Meta, 48(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.7202/008533ar
55.
RileyP.CaswellI.FreitagM.GrangierD. (2019). Translationese as a Language in ‘Multilingual’ NMT. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03823.
56.
RobinsonD. (2003). Becoming a translator. Routledge.
57.
RobinsonD. (2015). Creativity and translation. In JonesR. (Ed.), The routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 278–290). Routledge.
58.
RodríguezM. C. V. (2008). Creativity in advertising translation. Quaderns de Filologia-Estudis Literaris, 13, 37–56.
59.
SakamotoA. (2020). The value of translation in the era of automation: An examination of threats. In DesjardinsR.LarsonneurC.LacourP. (Eds.), When translation goes digital: Case studies and critical reflections (pp. 231–255). Springer.
60.
SallazJ. J. (2013). Labor, economy, and society. John Wiley & Sons.
61.
StahlbergF. (2020). Neural machine translation: A review. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69, 343–418. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12007
62.
TieberM.BaumgartenS. (2024). Mean machines? Sociotechnical (r) evolution and human labour in the translation and interpreting industry. Perspectives, 32(3), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2024.2346378
63.
UmneyC.KretsosL. (2015). That’s the experience”: Passion, work precarity, and life transitions among London jazz musicians. Work and Occupations, 42(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415573634
WoodcockJ. (2018). Digital labour and workers’ organisation. In AtzeniM.NessI. (Eds.), Global perspectives on workers’ and labour organizations (pp. 157–173). Springer.
66.
WuM. (2023). The paradox of creative work: Exploring autonomy and inequality in the cultural and creative industries. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 9(1), 110–113. https://doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v9i1.9369
67.
ZelizerV. A. R. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton University Press.
