|
|
|
|
|
|
by rayiner
34 days ago
|
|
|
They will be discovered and used in litigation, and the results will be hilarious. Think about how much lawyers pick apart language (like statutes or the constitution) that was written deliberately by humans and subject to review and revision. Now we're going to have lawyers, e.g., seizing on word choice in AI notes that might have a sinister connotation when the original wording was innocuous. |
|
|
Potentially sinister due to the biases of the model, as the model may have been trained using internet content that has a lot more fictional titillating evil overlord board meetings than the actual mind-numbing real thing. Training that included extremist anti-corporate dogma might even bias the language models towards hallucinating the worst possible misinterpretation.
I've seen whisper hallucinate whole legal arguments whole cloth when the AGC was broken in it and the audio went quiet-- so I think the language models in it are more than powerful enough to politically load a transcript.
Good practice should be to minimize any unnecessary stored records because ANY record just means more processing costs in discovery and god knows how much extra cost in litigation should it happen to have an unfavorable interpretation in light of some impossible to anticipate future litigation.
But if AI transcription must be used it would be might be prudent to save a copy of the original audio along with it.