4 ms·

Transcripts are really important and they need to be proofed and edited by humans. However, they can be produced efficiently by sending digital audio recordings

by sjy 6y ago

Transcripts are really important and they need to be proofed and edited by humans. However, they can be produced efficiently by sending digital audio recordings to a team of fast typists who can work remotely, work concurrently, adjust the playback speed, skip pauses, and pause and replay tricky sections. These days, automated transcription software can further accelerate the process by generating a very rough draft. I don't think stenographers are used to produce court transcripts outside the United States.

pessimizer 6y ago
I don't see how that's any faster or cheaper. All stenographers are is fast typists. So I honestly don't even know if you're describing a distinct process. There are literally "Steno Masks," a sound-dampening mask that fits over your lower face that you can use to repeat whats being said, clearly and quietly, to transcription software on your computer (along with formatting notes and the identities of speakers.) Stenographers aren't required to use a stenotype, they're required to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings, and to be able to read back what was recently said. If you come up with a system that does that more efficiently, put it into action and take the profit. The methods used are defined by their efficiency. This is a thread about discussing people who can type faster and more accurately than one would imagine possible, and easily better than current machine performance.
- apostacy 6y ago
  Stenotype might very well be on the way out, but I still want every trial transcript to be edited by an actual human with expert training and who is strictly regulated and held responsible. I'm fine with lawyers using software to optimize their work. But I don't ever want to replace lawyers themselves. I can understand the temptation to create a law AI, since so much of what lawyers do is systematic and procedural. I still want a licensed lawyer to review and sign off on any arguments.
- sjy 6y ago
  Stenographers aren’t just fast typists, they are specialists trained to produce a written (shorthand) record of the hearing in real time. Audio recordings make this obsolete. Certified full transcripts are still needed, but they can be produced more quickly using concurrent typists and proof readers, and more cheaply because you don’t need to hire specialists trained in the use of expensive stenotype machines, or pay them to sit around in the courtroom when nobody is speaking. It’s not a novel idea, which is why I mentioned that as far as I know, stenotype is now used only in the United States. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979
apostacy 6y ago
I think it's also that court reporters are legal officers of the court. They have some legal training, and are highly regulated. They can be held responsible for what happens, in the same way as other court officers, like court clerks. Also, they witnessed what happened in the court room first hand, which is helpful. While you could certainly improve training for a team of outsourced stenographers, I think most people would feel safer knowing that the person generating the transcript is closely connected with the court, and not just a team of anonymous replaceable people in another country who didn't see the trial, and may only have access to portions of it. What is the real benefit? It's debatable whether any money would even be saved, paying several people in a developing country less than the salary of a single court reporter. And it introduces all sorts of new liabilities and complications. Personally, I can't see the cost savings really being worth it. The court reporter is hardly the most expensive part of a trial. I get nervous enough outsourcing my voicemail transcription to anonymous humans, so I can't imagine trial transcripts. The thing though that I think most people miss, is that this is far more than a technical problem. The courts are an instrument of civil society, and they need to be held to really strict standards. Legal procedures took centuries to evolve, so that people will accept them and time is not wasted re-inventing procedures. This is so much more important than any optimizations that could be introduced. And if it becomes too opaque and complicated, it loses any value because people need to be able to trust it. This over-optimization attitude can be a real problem for society. I am worried that silicon valley will try to "solve" this problem for us. It is bad enough that this "move fast and break things, bro" culture is going after our voting machines and our nuclear missile silos.

by sjy 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

I don't see how that's any faster or cheaper. All stenographers are is fast typists. So I honestly don't even know if you're describing a distinct process. There are literally "Steno Masks," a sound-dampening mask that fits over your lower face that you can use to repeat whats being said, clearly and quietly, to transcription software on your computer (along with formatting notes and the identities of speakers.) Stenographers aren't required to use a stenotype, they're required to produce an accurate transcript of the proceedings, and to be able to read back what was recently said. If you come up with a system that does that more efficiently, put it into action and take the profit. The methods used are defined by their efficiency. This is a thread about discussing people who can type faster and more accurately than one would imagine possible, and easily better than current machine performance.

apostacy 6y ago
Stenotype might very well be on the way out, but I still want every trial transcript to be edited by an actual human with expert training and who is strictly regulated and held responsible. I'm fine with lawyers using software to optimize their work. But I don't ever want to replace lawyers themselves. I can understand the temptation to create a law AI, since so much of what lawyers do is systematic and procedural. I still want a licensed lawyer to review and sign off on any arguments.
sjy 6y ago
Stenographers aren’t just fast typists, they are specialists trained to produce a written (shorthand) record of the hearing in real time. Audio recordings make this obsolete. Certified full transcripts are still needed, but they can be produced more quickly using concurrent typists and proof readers, and more cheaply because you don’t need to hire specialists trained in the use of expensive stenotype machines, or pay them to sit around in the courtroom when nobody is speaking. It’s not a novel idea, which is why I mentioned that as far as I know, stenotype is now used only in the United States. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13035979

apostacy 6y ago

I think it's also that court reporters are legal officers of the court. They have some legal training, and are highly regulated. They can be held responsible for what happens, in the same way as other court officers, like court clerks. Also, they witnessed what happened in the court room first hand, which is helpful. While you could certainly improve training for a team of outsourced stenographers, I think most people would feel safer knowing that the person generating the transcript is closely connected with the court, and not just a team of anonymous replaceable people in another country who didn't see the trial, and may only have access to portions of it. What is the real benefit? It's debatable whether any money would even be saved, paying several people in a developing country less than the salary of a single court reporter. And it introduces all sorts of new liabilities and complications. Personally, I can't see the cost savings really being worth it. The court reporter is hardly the most expensive part of a trial. I get nervous enough outsourcing my voicemail transcription to anonymous humans, so I can't imagine trial transcripts. The thing though that I think most people miss, is that this is far more than a technical problem. The courts are an instrument of civil society, and they need to be held to really strict standards. Legal procedures took centuries to evolve, so that people will accept them and time is not wasted re-inventing procedures. This is so much more important than any optimizations that could be introduced. And if it becomes too opaque and complicated, it loses any value because people need to be able to trust it. This over-optimization attitude can be a real problem for society. I am worried that silicon valley will try to "solve" this problem for us. It is bad enough that this "move fast and break things, bro" culture is going after our voting machines and our nuclear missile silos.