@law-ai-labClearJP: making AI products sound natural in Japanese
Hi, I’m Rie, founder of ClearJP.
I help AI products sound natural, human, and trustworthy in Japanese.
My work focuses on Japanese AI and localization quality — not only grammar and naturalness, but also clarity, tone, human warmth, dignity, and whether product claims are actually supported by evidence.
I’ve been building a public portfolio of review cases around issues such as AI hallucination risk, customer-support language, onboarding and consent, and Japanese wording that is technically correct but still feels wrong to a real user.
I’m also developing an AI for Social Good project focused on helping older adults maintain independence, dignity, and access to everyday services.
What’s working:
Publishing practical case studies on GitHub and LinkedIn has started bringing more visibility and conversations around AI quality and Japanese localization.
What I need:
I’d love to meet AI founders or product teams building for Japan who want a native-Japanese perspective on AI-generated copy, localization quality, product claims, or human-centered tone.
ClearJP: clearjp.com
GitHub: github.com/law-ai-lab
Comments5
Welcome Rie. Case studies are the right asset, but GitHub and LinkedIn mostly rent you the attention: they rarely rank for what a founder types when they worry about their Japanese launch. I would give each review case its own page on clearjp.com, with an English explanation for the founder and the before and after Japanese side by side, and a title that matches the worry, like "AI support replies that sound rude in Japanese" or "why our Japanese onboarding copy felt machine translated". Link to that page from the GitHub repo and the LinkedIn post, so the discussion there sends people and authority back to one URL you own. A short "send us one screen, we review it" offer at the end of each case turns readers into conversations. Which kind of case has brought you the most replies so far?
Thank you, Aleksandr — that’s a very useful point. So far, the strongest response has been around cases dealing with AI-generated claims / hallucination risk and Japanese that is technically correct but still feels wrong to a real user. I especially like your suggestion to give each case its own page on clearjp.com rather than relying only on GitHub and LinkedIn. That would also make it easier to show the problem, the before/after Japanese, and the review logic in one place. I’m going to think seriously about building that into the next version of the site.
Post one of your 'technically correct but still feels wrong' cases right here in the thread: the original Japanese line, your rewrite, and one English sentence on why a real Japanese user would hesitate at the first version. Most founders outside Japan can't spot that problem on their own, so seeing a single before-and-after would show them what your review catches faster than the portfolio links.
Thanks, Ryan — that makes sense. One simple example: Before: “Your input method is wrong.” After: “Enter the date in YYYY-MM-DD format, for example 2026-10-25.” The first version is grammatically natural in Japanese, but it puts the problem on the user. The second explains what the product actually needs and gives a clear recovery path. That kind of difference is exactly what I review in ClearJP.
5 comments
Welcome Rie. Case studies are the right asset, but GitHub and LinkedIn mostly rent you the attention: they rarely rank for what a founder types when they worry about their Japanese launch. I would give each review case its own page on clearjp.com, with an English explanation for the founder and the before and after Japanese side by side, and a title that matches the worry, like "AI support replies that sound rude in Japanese" or "why our Japanese onboarding copy felt machine translated". Link to that page from the GitHub repo and the LinkedIn post, so the discussion there sends people and authority back to one URL you own. A short "send us one screen, we review it" offer at the end of each case turns readers into conversations. Which kind of case has brought you the most replies so far?
Thank you, Aleksandr — that’s a very useful point. So far, the strongest response has been around cases dealing with AI-generated claims / hallucination risk and Japanese that is technically correct but still feels wrong to a real user. I especially like your suggestion to give each case its own page on clearjp.com rather than relying only on GitHub and LinkedIn. That would also make it easier to show the problem, the before/after Japanese, and the review logic in one place. I’m going to think seriously about building that into the next version of the site.
Those two are a good place to start, since each one is a worry a founder can actually search for. I would make one hub page per theme, say "AI hallucination risk in Japanese" and "Japanese that is correct but feels wrong", and hang the individual cases under it. Your date format example from this thread is already a perfect case page: the original line, the rewrite, and one sentence on why the first one blames the user. Ten short pages like that will usually do more for you in search than one long portfolio.
Post one of your 'technically correct but still feels wrong' cases right here in the thread: the original Japanese line, your rewrite, and one English sentence on why a real Japanese user would hesitate at the first version. Most founders outside Japan can't spot that problem on their own, so seeing a single before-and-after would show them what your review catches faster than the portfolio links.
Thanks, Ryan — that makes sense. One simple example: Before: “Your input method is wrong.” After: “Enter the date in YYYY-MM-DD format, for example 2026-10-25.” The first version is grammatically natural in Japanese, but it puts the problem on the user. The second explains what the product actually needs and gives a clear recovery path. That kind of difference is exactly what I review in ClearJP.