I find it a bit limiting as is, but it has a ton of potential, and I hope the creator of it see's this post somewhere :P Here are some thoughts:
The AI might not capture all the nuances, leading to misunderstandings in complex topics. I noticed that it gives me highlights of key information, but if I'm new to this subject it almost boils it down too much to the point where it doesn't make sense to me. Only a person who already knows the information would understand the summary. This is the equivalent of reading someone elses notes on a lecture. Sometimes they omit the obvious to them since they were in the lecture themselves, but it doesn't help someone reading it for the first time.
A lot of the value could come from additional information that wasn't part of the transcript, thats where I see scribbler adding the most value. For eg. in this could give extra context and infromation on Nelson Chu, why this person is important, what they have accomplished, and why I should care. The original audio doesn't do this, but added information upon request could make this less of a summary and more of a helpful way to interact with the podcast.
Naturally when dealing with video, a lot gets lost. The summarizer that can begin to capture and summarize the visual aspect will win this tool battle. That will begin to include a missing dimension IMO.
Anywho, I think this tool is really cool. And i'm excited to see where it goes!
re #2: I think that's spot on where these tools can thrive. It's nice to have a summary, but it seems all tools these days can summarize decently and extract key points. I feel like if they can easy pull information that could be helpful (perhaps on demand or when requested), that would make this more of a replacement to listening than a glorified notetaker.
I don't think it should try to replace video with a summarizer, that might only be effective for videos that are talking head channels, or podcasts that just have a video component (ie Joe Rogan podcast). I think them spending time on making 1 & 2 make sense, but #3 seems like it's just there to cover the cases of a video file where most of it's value is the audio itself.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I find it a bit limiting as is, but it has a ton of potential, and I hope the creator of it see's this post somewhere :P Here are some thoughts:
The AI might not capture all the nuances, leading to misunderstandings in complex topics. I noticed that it gives me highlights of key information, but if I'm new to this subject it almost boils it down too much to the point where it doesn't make sense to me. Only a person who already knows the information would understand the summary. This is the equivalent of reading someone elses notes on a lecture. Sometimes they omit the obvious to them since they were in the lecture themselves, but it doesn't help someone reading it for the first time.
A lot of the value could come from additional information that wasn't part of the transcript, thats where I see scribbler adding the most value. For eg. in this could give extra context and infromation on Nelson Chu, why this person is important, what they have accomplished, and why I should care. The original audio doesn't do this, but added information upon request could make this less of a summary and more of a helpful way to interact with the podcast.
Naturally when dealing with video, a lot gets lost. The summarizer that can begin to capture and summarize the visual aspect will win this tool battle. That will begin to include a missing dimension IMO.
Anywho, I think this tool is really cool. And i'm excited to see where it goes!
re #2: I think that's spot on where these tools can thrive. It's nice to have a summary, but it seems all tools these days can summarize decently and extract key points. I feel like if they can easy pull information that could be helpful (perhaps on demand or when requested), that would make this more of a replacement to listening than a glorified notetaker.
I don't think it should try to replace video with a summarizer, that might only be effective for videos that are talking head channels, or podcasts that just have a video component (ie Joe Rogan podcast). I think them spending time on making 1 & 2 make sense, but #3 seems like it's just there to cover the cases of a video file where most of it's value is the audio itself.