I'd argue that voice recognition is in a worse place now — It creates a FALSE sense that it can do a good transcription, when it is actually corrupted in the wo

I'd argue that voice recognition is in a worse place now — It creates a FALSE sense that it can do a good transcription, when it is actually corrupted in the worst way. I took part in a legal deposition where an "AI Transcription Software" was being used. When I received the transcript it had numerous errors, but they were all subtle. More common names were inserted in place of the name that I said, e.g., "Kennedy" instead of "Kemeny". "You have a [something]" was transcribed as "I have a [something]", completely reversing the meaning. And many more errors. The common thread between the errors was that what was inserted into the transcript would have been the MOST EXPECTED word or phrase, instead of the ACTUAL MORE SURPRISING (surprising in an information-theory way) word or phrase. It's evident that on top of the phoneme recognition layer, this transcription software checked questionable items against tables/graphs of most likely words to occur near the other words it confidently identified in that context. Makes a transcription sound great, but it is WRONG. The result was that the "AI Transcription" actively destroyed key information and hid that destruction under the guise of a smoothly edited transcription. Although this surely was not the intent of the system's creators, I cannot think of a better way to make a more evil transcription system.