The Norwegian Interpreting Act and the use of AI-tools
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector is growing rapidly, not least as a means of addressing language and communication barriers. In Norway, the Interpreting Act regulates the use of interpreters and requires...
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector is growing rapidly, not least as a means of addressing language and communication barriers. In Norway, the Interpreting Act regulates the use of interpreters and requires public bodies to engage qualified interpreters when necessary to safeguard legal rights or ensure the provision of appropriate assistance and services.
The Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi), the national authority responsible for interpreting in public services, has published a short article examining the relationship between the use of AI tools and the requirements of the Norwegian Interpreting Act.
The article has kindly been translated into English by our colleague at the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT), Ms Shannon O'Riordan.
The original Norwegian article is available here.
AI and the Norwegian Interpreting Act
Machines as interpreters: where does the Interpreting Act draw the line?
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector is rising rapidly, not least as a tool to help overcome challenges related to language and communication. At the same time, the Interpreting Act sets out clear guidelines on when a human interpreter must be used, which is why it is important to clarify how these kinds of technical solutions can be used without infringing the law.
When are human interpreters required?
Section 6(1) of the Interpreting Act stipulates that an interpreter must be used when required by law or regulation, or in cases where the use of an interpreter is considered a prerequisite for safeguarding legal certainty or providing adequate assistance and services. This applies both in cases where the law explicitly states that an interpreter is required, such as in the Norwegian Crisis Centre Act, and in cases where legal provisions implicitly call for interpretation, as in the Norwegian Patient and User Rights Act, which states that information must be provided in a language the patient understands. In such situations, only a qualified human interpreter can guarantee legal certainty and ensure that services are of an acceptable standard. Artificial intelligence or other alternative solutions cannot fulfil this obligation.
When can AI be used as a supplementary tool?
That said, there are many contexts in which the Interpreting Act does not require the use of a human interpreter and in which, therefore, the use of AI or other language resources may be permitted. This can apply to simple and informal inquiries, short conversations at a counter or over the phone, and written translations of less critical information. As long as legal certainty is not compromised and a reasonable level of communication can be achieved, the use of these solutions is not in breach of the Interpreting Act.
Responsibilities and guidelines for professionals
It is always the responsibility of the professional and the public body to assess whether a situation requires an interpreter. The assessment must consider the nature and seriousness of the situation, as well as whether the parties involved are able to communicate effectively without an interpreter. In cases where the obligation to use an interpreter is regulated by other legislation or when the necessity requirement is met, Section 7 of the Interpreting Act stipulates that a qualified human interpreter must be used. A desire to use AI cannot override this.
Section 9 of the Interpreting Act also requires public bodies that regularly use interpreters to draw up guidelines on hiring and using said professionals. These guidelines must clearly identify situations that trigger the obligation to use an interpreter, though it is also recommended that organisations define when it is considered justifiable to use AI in situations not covered by the obligation under Section 6. Clear guidelines help to ensure that professionals exercise their discretion within an objective framework and also reduce the risk of misjudgements or misapplications. Nevertheless, the rules should remain flexible enough that they can be adjusted in response to technological developments.
A qualified human interpreter must always be used when required by law or for reasons of legal certainty and due process, whilst AI can be used as a supplementary tool in more straightforward cases where those considerations do not apply. The key is to ensure that thorough professional assessments are conducted on a case-by-case basis and that organisations are supporting best practices through clear and up-to-date guidelines. In this way, artificial intelligence can serve as a useful tool without falling foul of the Interpreting Act.