Since employment statistics generally suck and in this particular case may be difficult to parse, I will resolve this question based on the following metric:

_____________________________________________________________________

1) The NYT, Washington Post, or WSJ reports in a regular 

 (not op-ed, not video, not podcast, etc) that there has been a 

large drop-off in translator/interpreter jobs due to AI

, not just telling the story of one translator who lost their job, for instance.  The drop-off needs to be substantial.  I'm not going to give an exact number cut-off because it's hard to say the precise threshold this will become meaningful without having a really good understanding of how the statistics were determined, but something like 50% reduction would obviously resolve positively, and something like 3% reduction would obviously not lead to resolution.  As long as the story makes clear that AI has led to this major drop-off, and it's not just a fluke of year-to-year statistics, I'm willing to resolve positively to a decently wide range, though.  The article also needs to be definitive.  It cannot say "this drop-off could be due to AI or the major recession".  It needs to be pretty confident in its conclusion.

2) Multiple (3+) other reputable but smaller news sources report the conditions from (1) such as Vox, Chicago Tribune, Slate, The Atlantic, Boston Globe, etc.

Cutoff is end of year 2027.  If there is not good evidence by then that AI has led to job loss for translators, it will resolve NO.

I will not bet in this market, as the resolution is subjective.  I will be happy to consult with moderators / subject matter experts / etc if there is a debate or unclear resolution conditions.  If you have questions, ask in comments and I will update the market description.  I reserve the right to tweak the market description over the next couple days in response to bettor feedback.