←back to thread

423 points sohkamyung | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
everdrive ◴[] No.45669672[source]
It's important to bear this in mind whenever you find out that someone uses an LLM to summarize a meeting, email, or other communication you've held. That person is not really getting the message you were conveying.
replies(3): >>45669771 #>>45670867 #>>45671995 #
senordevnyc ◴[] No.45670867[source]
It would be important to bear this in mind if it was true, but it's not.

I do sales meetings all day every day, and I've tried different AI note takers that send a summary of the meeting afterwards. I skim them when they get dumped into my CRM and they're almost always quite accurate. And I can verify it, because I was in the meeting.

replies(1): >>45673558 #
cheeze ◴[] No.45673558[source]
It makes me think that a lot of the folks commenting on this stuff haven't actually used the tooling.

Agreed, it's generally quite accurate. I find for hectic meetings, it can get some things wrong... But the notes are generally still higher quality than human generated notes.

Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? IMO absolutely.

Similar to many other things, the key is that you don't just blindly trust it. Have the LLM take notes and summarize, and then _proofread_ them, just as you would if you were writing them yourself...

replies(1): >>45674930 #
1. hunterpayne ◴[] No.45674930[source]
I think the cost of inaccuracy is very a important factor in if it works for a specific use case. Meeting notes probably don't have much cost of inaccuracy. Medical records on the other hand...