4 ms·

Btw I notice many pretty bad errors in this transcription of the talk. The actual video will be up soon I hope.

kapildev 1y ago
How soon? I am contemplating whether to read this errorful transcript or wait for the video
dang 1y ago
Ah sorry! I'm going to downweight this thread now. There's so much demand around this, people are just super eager to get the information. I can understand why, because it was my favorite talk as well :)
pudiklubi 1y ago
anything you'd want fixed immediately? happy to do so – or even take this down if you wish. it's your talk.
sotix 1y ago
Is this because it was recorded with AI tooling rather than a traditional note taker?
- pudiklubi 1y ago
  it was an audio recording, transcribed with speech to text models. there's definitely some errors and words lost. I also tried to emphasize this
  - sotix 1y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Bit ironic given the talk’s subject. It is quite a bit of effort, but there’s something to say for going through and manually writing up the transcript like a journalist. Sometimes you can’t beat human effort ;)
    - Eisenstein 1y ago
      What about a middle ground? Speech-to-text AI with manual corrections?
      - sotix 1y ago
        That’s a great approach! That’s what I meant to convey if I had been a bit more articulate. I assume journalists do exactly that. Takes away some laborious work while retaining accuracy.
sensanaty 1y ago
[flagged]
tomhow 1y ago
The video is now up and on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314423
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago
  [dead]
  - dang 1y ago
    Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ChrisArchitect 1y ago
      right, can you please move this whole discussion thread over there then, to avoid the duplicate conversation?
      - tomhow 1y ago
        Please don't think we have haven't put any thought into this. It's not always a straightforward decision. In this case the determining factor is that the original submission was not the verbatim speech that the speaker gave, and the speaker himself complained that that some of the transcription was inaccurate. This then caused significant meta-discussion about the inaccuracy of the transcription. For the other comments that were about the content itself, we can't be sure if those comments were made in response to parts of the talk that were accurately or inaccurately transcribed. We understand there may be overlapping comments, but that's a price we have to pay given the other considerations. No decision would be perfect, and it's not the same as usual "dupe" scenarios. We have to be a bit flexible when the situation is different from the norm in important ways.

How soon? I am contemplating whether to read this errorful transcript or wait for the video

dang 1y ago

Ah sorry! I'm going to downweight this thread now. There's so much demand around this, people are just super eager to get the information. I can understand why, because it was my favorite talk as well :)

pudiklubi 1y ago

anything you'd want fixed immediately? happy to do so – or even take this down if you wish. it's your talk.

sotix 1y ago

Is this because it was recorded with AI tooling rather than a traditional note taker?

pudiklubi 1y ago
it was an audio recording, transcribed with speech to text models. there's definitely some errors and words lost. I also tried to emphasize this
- sotix 1y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Bit ironic given the talk’s subject. It is quite a bit of effort, but there’s something to say for going through and manually writing up the transcript like a journalist. Sometimes you can’t beat human effort ;)
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    What about a middle ground? Speech-to-text AI with manual corrections?
    - sotix 1y ago
      That’s a great approach! That’s what I meant to convey if I had been a bit more articulate. I assume journalists do exactly that. Takes away some laborious work while retaining accuracy.

sensanaty 1y ago

[flagged]

tomhow 1y ago

The video is now up and on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314423

ChrisArchitect 1y ago
[dead]
- dang 1y ago
  Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ChrisArchitect 1y ago
    right, can you please move this whole discussion thread over there then, to avoid the duplicate conversation?
    - tomhow 1y ago
      Please don't think we have haven't put any thought into this. It's not always a straightforward decision. In this case the determining factor is that the original submission was not the verbatim speech that the speaker gave, and the speaker himself complained that that some of the transcription was inaccurate. This then caused significant meta-discussion about the inaccuracy of the transcription. For the other comments that were about the content itself, we can't be sure if those comments were made in response to parts of the talk that were accurately or inaccurately transcribed. We understand there may be overlapping comments, but that's a price we have to pay given the other considerations. No decision would be perfect, and it's not the same as usual "dupe" scenarios. We have to be a bit flexible when the situation is different from the norm in important ways.