| ▲ | Dumblydorr a day ago |
| Co-pilot and AI has been shoved at the Microsoft Stack in my org for months. Most of the features were disabled or hopelessly bad. It’s cheaper for Microsoft to push this junk and claim they’re doing something, it’s going to improve their stock far more than not doing it, even though it’s basically useless currently. Another issue is that my org disallows AI transcription bots. It’s a legit security risk if you have some random process recording confidential info because the person was too busy to attend the meeting and take notes themselves. Or possibly they just shirk off the meetings and have AI sit in. |
|
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Transcription is arguably one of the must useful enterprise AI tools avaliable. But i sure as heck wouldn't trust the cloud with it. |
| |
| ▲ | 2dvisio 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Still find the Copilot transcripts orders of magnitude worse than something like Wispr Flow and they tend to allucinate constantly and do not adapt to a company's context (that Copilot has access too...). I am talking about acronyms of products / teams, names of people (even when they are in the call), etc. | | |
| ▲ | srean 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Can anyone familiar with the technical details shed light on why this is so. Is it because of a globally trained model (as opposed to trained[tweaked on] on context specific data) or because of using different classes of models. | | |
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Neither copilot nor flow can natively handle audio to my understanding, so there is already a transcription model converting it to text that then GPT tries to summarise. It could be they simply use a mediocre transcription model. Wispr is amazing but would hurt their pride to use a competitor. But i feel it's more likley the experience is; GPT didn't actually improve on the raw transcription, just made it worse. Especially as any miss-transcipted words may trip it up and make it misunderstand while making the summary. if i can choose between a potentially confused and misunderstood summary, and a badly spellchecked (flipped words) raw transcription, i would trust the latter. |
| |
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ye i didn't even think about advanced meetings summary bots. Just raw word for word transcription please. Wispr is pretty great. |
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is notoriously unreliable |
|
|
| ▲ | blibble 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It’s cheaper for Microsoft to push this junk and claim they’re doing something this has been the microsoft business model for 40 years |
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The worse part is to see it creep on developer stack at places where it should not be. I am all good for nice completion on VS, or help decypher compiler errors, but lets do this AI push with some contention. Also what I really deslike is the prompt interface, AI integrations have to feel natural transparent part of the workflow, not trying to put everything into a tiny chat window. And while we're at it, can we please improve voice reckognition? |
| |
