Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I was going for "set up some code once and don't think about it again" to maximise the odds of the idea sounding tempting.

Proofreading would set up an expectation on the part of readers that it -had- been proofread and corrected and therefore a commitment to perform a repeated "boring but important" task going forwards for whoever's doing said proofreading.

That way would likely lie either delayed transcripts or never getting to initial activation energy to provide anything at all.

So I think "add a quick bit of code to your podcast publishing workflow and a CAVEAT IN BIG LETTERS" is better to do first.

If it turns out enough people care about the transcript, doing it a more labour intensive nicer way later is something they can decide, well, later.

Shipping is feature zero, as ever.




I hate bad transcripts.


The automatic transcribers have (pretty recently) reached the point where I'd rather have their output than not.

This came as something of a surprise to me - six months ago I'd likely have been enthusiastically agreeing with you.

As an example, the transcript tab on https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-episode/tom-nichols-jack-... was pretty readable to me in spite of the errors. Whether you'll find it the same is, of course, a separate question.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: