Anyone who has a lot of meetings will tell you it's hard to remember what was said, what was promised etc. So people take notes but that's difficult. Transcripts are great.
Anyway, even with a software scribe, meetings should probably end with attendees reviewing and agreeing on some kind of written document which will be the meeting's artifact. You know, so people can refer to it later. Of course this never happens, because in meetings people get bored and tired and it's easier to just give everyone the Zoom wave and crawl to the sofa.
I found at uni that well-prepared blackboard/overhead lectures were excellent for taking notes. I caught many small typos and misunderstandings as I would actively work through each step of the theorem/proof/problem as I wrote.
In hindsight I realized they must have spent a great deal of effort in preparing the lectures precisely such that they were easy to write down.
In contrast, the PowerPoint lectures we had was exactly like you describe. Either I could focus on writing stuff down, but then I couldn't really follow what they were saying, or I could focus on what they were saying but not write anything down. Either way I felt I was missing out, as writing stuff down made stuff stick magnitudes better.
I attributed this to the fact that PowerPoint doesn't lend itself to be easily transferred to notes, so it requires a transcription step that detracts from the lessons.
I guess it's in large part due to a reduction in the number of secretaries and assistant roles in most companies, but while many part of those roles became redundant with word processing etc., producing good quality notes did not, exactly because meeting participants that need to focus on the meeting make really lousy note-takers.
Heck, I've been in meetings more than once where we referred back to the notes in the same meeting, and having good notes is amazing in those situations.