This week, I had the privilege of moderating an interesting panel discussion on interpreter training and its future in the face of rapid technological change (video recording here). I was able to bring together experts from academia and industry, including: Carlo Eugeni, Winnie Heh, Giorgia Martina, and Dieter Runge1.
Each of them brought a unique perspective to the table, making for a lively discussion about one of the most pressing issues in our field, something that is key to me at a personal level: how is technology—particularly AI—reshaping interpreting, and what does that mean for training the next generation of professionals? I truly believe there isn’t enough debate on this topic, particularly due to the lack of sufficient exchange between academia and external stakeholders. Today, we had input from LSPs, but in the future, I would love to see representatives from international institutions, local governments, healthcare, and other key sectors at the same table. Diversity is key in shaping a well-rounded and forward-thinking discussion.
For once, I had the privilege of not sharing my own views but instead asking questions and listening to the perspectives of various experts.
A Declining Interest in Interpreter Training?
One of the most concerning trends we discussed is the decline in student enrollment in interpreting and language programs. This isn’t just happening in one region—it’s a global phenomenon. But the differences among regions, languages, interpreting modalities, etc. are relevant and underexplored. We do not have official data as of today. What we know is anedoctical2. I wrote about possible reasons here.
Winnie provided a sobering perspective from the U.S., where enrollment in language studies has been decreasing for years, well before AI entered the conversation. According to data from the Modern Language Association, language program enrollment dropped by 30% between 2009 and 2021. The biggest culprits? Budget cuts, the growing focus on STEM fields, and the increasing dominance of English as a global lingua franca.
Carlo shared a similar trend from Europe. While English-to-Italian interpreting programs have seen stable or even increasing enrollments, other language combinations (like French, Russian, and German into Italian) have suffered. In the UK, fewer students are studying modern languages overall, making it harder to sustain robust training programs in translation and interpreting.
AI: Threat or Opportunity?
A major theme of our discussion was AI. Is it deterring students from pursuing interpreting as a career? The short answer: yes and no.
Many students look at AI-powered machine translation and interpreting tools and wonder: “If the machine can do it, why should I invest in a degree?” This skepticism is understandable. In the past, we reassured students that AI was still far from being a real threat, but that narrative is shifting. AI-assisted tools are improving rapidly, and while they won’t replace human interpreters outright, at least in all contexts, they are changing the way we work.
Dieter had a great point: AI isn’t making interpreters obsolete—it’s augmenting their roles. Future interpreters will need to blend linguistic expertise with digital proficiency to remain competitive. Instead of just transmitting language, interpreters will need to act as AI trainers, quality controllers, and specialists in complex multilingual communication settings.
Giorgia, as a student, shared a valuable perspective. She entered her MA program knowing AI was gaining ground but didn’t realize how much it would impact her future career. Her takeaway? Resilience and adaptability are key. She’s willing to embrace new tools, understanding that the real challenge isn’t being replaced by AI—it’s keeping up with the interpreters who know how to use it effectively. And most importantly: to be successful in the future you need to be very very good.
Are Universities Keeping Up?
This is where things got really interesting. I asked Winnie whether universities are adapting their curricula fast enough to meet industry needs. Her response? A firm no.
But before we put all the blame on academia, she pointed out that the issue is complex. Universities need time to adapt to industry shifts, and without clear signals from the market about what skills are needed, it’s hard for them to adjust their programs effectively.
Dieter added that many students graduate with little hands-on experience with the tools they’ll actually use in their careers. This is a major gap—interpreters today need to be comfortable working with AI-powered platforms, remote interpreting tools, and digital workflows. Yet, many students are only exposed to these technologies after they enter the workforce.
Finally, Carlo pointed out that this very discussion should have taken place 20 years ago, not just now. And he is absolutely right—20 years ago, when I first began exploring the technologization of interpreting, everyone in academia dismissed it, insisting that it would never become an important topic.
What Needs to Change?
So, how do we move forward?
We all agreed that interpreter training must evolve—quickly. Some of the key takeaways from our discussion:
✅ Stronger collaboration between academia and industry. Universities can’t afford to operate in a bubble. They need direct input from LSPs and tech providers to ensure their curricula reflect real-world needs.
✅ More practical, hands-on training. Students should graduate with experience using industry-standard tools. Training programs should include exposure to remote interpreting, AI-assisted workflows, and emerging technologies.
✅ A clearer definition of the new interpreter role. What does the interpreter of the future look like? Instead of vague concepts like “upskilling” and “reskilling,” we need concrete descriptions of the new skill sets interpreters need to thrive.
✅ Better communication about career opportunities. One of the biggest misconceptions is that interpreting is a dying profession. In reality, demand for interpreters remains high, and there are more career paths than ever before. Students need to know that interpreting isn’t just about sitting in a booth—it’s a dynamic, evolving career with opportunities in AI training, tech development, localization, and beyond.
Less Talk, More Action (as Luigi Muzii from the audience suggested)
I left this discussion feeling both inspired and concerned. Inspired by the passion and expertise of my panelists, but concerned that we might still be moving too slowly.
As Winnie said, “Let’s not make this another academic exercise that takes five years. Let’s act now.”
So, what’s the next step?
One concrete idea we discussed is forming a working group that brings together LSPs, interpreters, educators, policy makers and students to define the future of interpreter training. A blank slate. If we could design a training program from scratch, what would it look like? What knowledge and skills would it emphasize? What technologies would students be exposed to?
This isn’t just about theoretical discussions—it’s about real, actionable change. If we don’t move fast, the gap between what universities teach and what the market demands will only widen.
In future, I will also would like to see the following topics discussed:
- how many interpreters will we really need?
- how do we assure that interpreting, as a profession, remains economically interesting for young people?
- while everyone seems to agree that practical skills are the most important aspect of training (I do not share this view, see here), how to find the right compromise between short terms and long terms need in education?
Let’s Continue the Conversation
I’d love to hear your thoughts:
➡️ How do you see the role of interpreters evolving?
➡️ What skills do you think interpreters will need in 5-10 years?
➡️ If you could change interpreter training today, what would you do differently?
Drop a comment below or reach out—let’s keep this discussion going.
Because the future of interpreting isn’t just happening to us—we have a chance to shape it.
- Carlo Eugeni (University of Leeds), an expert in interpreting, respeaking and audiovisual translation; Winnie Heh (Middlebury Institute of International Studies), career advisor and long-time industry professional; Giorgia Martina, a current MA student in Interpreting at the University of Mainz; Dieter Runge, co-founder and VP of Boostlingo, with years of experience in the language services industry. ↩︎
- See for example here -in German- about reduction of translation and interpreting enrollment (in Germany), or here about the closure/downsizing of language institutes (in GB). But we have also new openings, such as in York. ↩︎