@freeschool I'm not sure what your point is…
@levisan Perhaps I didn't get why you mentioned it... but it seemed it was because it's in some way(s) uneeded or old-fashioned as a profession /art?
And therefore, like many things, it may exist (your point), but isn't popular or paid for by state (my point in reply).
And then to see it mentioned by anyone (as I mention in reply) was also a surprise to me.
Make sense?
@freeschool to elaborate on my original thought, I wonder why there is still a need—and thus a job—for live as-it-happens transcription (outside of the use for things like life captioning) when an audio recording is technically possible and can carry more meaning.
I should have been more specific in my initial toot.
@levisan Indeed - clearer now :)
@levisan have you seen YouTube and Zoom captions of meetings? Court meetings can't use that AI for meeting records, yet.
@progo I guess what I really don’t get is why we need to have live transcription of things like court meetings in an era where we can record the audio
@levisan have you ever sat through a youtube instruction video wishing it was a page of text?
@progo indeed I do, but I don’t see why we need to have specially-certified people who can type 250 words per minute to transcribe things live, as opposed to transcription happening after the fact
@levisan Many jobs- just hardly ever practised or paid for.
Waterfalls of finance don't really integrate things like this, and most arts as it isn't part of the profit machine in any major way.
Bit surprised to even see a comment about it 😄