I wonder if the human agents agree the AI summaries are better than their summaries. I was nodding as I read and then told myself "yeah but it wouldn't be able to summarize the meetings I have", so I wonder if this only works in 3rd person.

▲

mbStavola 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Part of me also wonders if people may agree that its better simply because they don't actually have to do the summarization anymore. Even if it is worse by some %, that is an annoying task you are no longer responsible for; if anything goes wrong down the line, "ah the AI must've screwed up" is your way out.

▲

roflc0ptic 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m inclined to believe that call center employees don’t have a lot of incentive to do a good job/care, so a lossy AI could quite plausibly be higher quality than a human

▲

latexr 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

For many years now, every time I have to talk with someone on a call centre there has been a survey at the end with at least two questions:

1. Would you recommend us?

2. Was the agent helpful?

I have a friend who used to work at a call centre and would routinely get the lowest marks on the first item and the highest on the second. I do that when the company has been shitty but I understand the person on the line really made an effort to help.

Obviously, those ratings go back to the supervisor and matter for your performance reviews, which can make all the difference between getting a raise or being fired. If anything, call centre employees have a lot of incentive to do a good job if they have any intention of keeping it, because everything they do with a customer is recorded and scrutinised.

	▲	roflc0ptic 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Fair point, though I think “did I accurately summarize a conversation” is much harder to check/get away with vs “did I piss off the person on the other end”

▲

freehorse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Also it should be easy to correct some obvious mistakes in less convoluted discussions. Also, prob a support call is less complex than eg a group meeting by many aspects, and with a prob larger margin of acceptable errors.

▲

evereverever 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That re-synthesis of information is incredibly valuable to storing it in your own memory.

Of course, we can just rely on knowing nothing just to look things up, but I want more for thinking peoples.

▲

jcims 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I built a little solution to record and transcribe all of my own meetings. I have many meetings (30hr week+) and I can't keep pace with adequate note-taking while participating in them all.

I'm finding that the summarization of individual meetings very useful, I'm also finding that the ability to send in transcripts across meetings, departments, initiatives whatever to be very effective at surfacing subtexts and common pain points much more effectively than I can.

I'm also using it to look at my own participation in meetings to help me see how I interact with others a (little) bit more objectively and it has helped me find ways to improve. (I don't take its advice directly lol, just think about observations and determine myself if it's something that's important and worth thinking about)

	▲	mjcohen 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Make sure that is legal where you are and, if needed, you have their permission.

▲

dymk 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have you tried having it summarize the meetings you have?

▲

kenjackson 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI definitely summarizes meetings better than me and _almost_ anyone else I've seen do it (there is one exception -- one guy was a meeting note taker god. He was so good that he set up a mailing list because so many people wanted to read his meeting notes.) I could probably do better than AI if I really tried, but I've only ever done that a few times.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]