>This kind of filler-laden writing will be quickly eradicated
It's a transcript of a podcast. I agree it was annoying to read, but the purpose of a podcast is not maximum-efficiency transmission of information.
It's a transcript of a podcast. I agree it was annoying to read, but the purpose of a podcast is not maximum-efficiency transmission of information.
Remember that this technology was developed for the NSA because of the data deluge it's surveillance systems created. Who had time to listen to hours of recorded phone calls looking for potential dangerous activity? Speech to text helped alleviate the problem for a short while, but when the internet took away the monopoly the phone companies had on long-distance calls, the volume of international calls went ballistic, and the NSA needed a way of filtering the data to something more useful. In comes A.I. to the rescue!
And fwiw, "this isn't condensed enough" could be applied to 100% of novels, achieving a 100% compression rate, since none of it is useful.
I'm very sorry if you're the one person with a cockroach infestation that has to be eradicated right now and you critically depend on the information in this one article and don't have access to any other resources, but maybe just accept that there are different writing styles for different things, audiences, and even over time for the same person.
I don't see why people who can't hear would like to read a transcript of a podcast rather than an article either.