One of the most common criticisms in the translation industry today is that someone used translation software to help translate something, based on an acceptance that a translated article is of poor quality or just overly peculiar in places. But then, there are those that argue that translation software is "getting better" all the time. If you ask me, they have a point. I sometimes use Google Translate to help me out in my work, but strictly only for guidance. I always accept that I'm the one responsible for the choice of words at the end of it all. But Google Translate doesn't just "translate accurately" these days; I'm often impressed by how it offers to-English translation suggestions that are along the lines of the language used by the masses. Consider this scenario: if I was going to post a joke online about something that actually happened, it's not like it wouldn't make sense to begin it with "This actually happened." But I've resolved not to forget that I keep seeing "True story" in place of this time and time again. I am compelled to try to produce work that is not just academically and logically correct, but stuff that people will actually grasp easily and readily, and that's why I sometimes Google Translate for guidance. (It does seem ironic, doesn't it?)

Don't people in the translation industry prefer that work be proofread / checked by someone else anyway?