Readit NewsOne thing that I thought was fairly clear in my write-up but feels a little lost in the comments: I didn't just try this with whisper. I tried it with their newer gpt-4o-transcription model, which seems considerably faster. There's no way to run that one locally.
I'm actually curious, if I run transcriptions back-to-back-to-back on the exact same audio, how much variance should I expect?
Maybe I'll try three approaches:
- A straight diff comparison (I know a lot of people are calling for this, but I really think this is less useful than it sounds)
- A "variance within the modal" test running it multiple times against the same audio, tracking how much it varies between runs
- An LLM analysis assessing if the primary points from a talk were captured and summarized at 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x runs (I think this is far more useful and interesting)
It's not my intention to bloat information or delivery but I also don't super know how to follow this format especially in this kind of talk. Because it's not so much about relaying specific information (like your final script here), but more as a collection of prompts back to the audience as things to think about.
My companion tweet to this video on X had a brief TLDR/Summary included where I tried, but I didn't super think it was very reflective of the talk, it was more about topics covered.
Anyway, I am overall a big fan of doing more compute at the "creation time" to compress other people's time during "consumption time" and I think it's the respectful and kind thing to do.
LLMs as the operating system, the way you interface with vibe-coding (smaller chunks) and the idea that maybe we haven't found the "GUI for AI" yet are all things I've pondered and discussed with people. You articulated them well.
I think some formats, like a talk, don't lend themselves easily to meaningful summaries. It's about giving the audience things to think about, to your point. It's the sum of storytelling that's more than the whole and why we still do it.
My post is, at the end of the day, really more about a neat trick to optimize transcriptions. This particular video might be a great example of why you may not always want to do that :)
Anyway, thanks for the time and thanks for the talk!
Speed your audio up 2–3× with ffmpeg before sending it to OpenAI’s gpt-4o-transcribe: the shorter file uses fewer input-tokens, cuts costs by roughly a third, and processes faster with little quality loss (4× is too fast). A sample yt-dlp → ffmpeg → curl script shows the workflow.
;)
(Thanks for your good sense of humor)
Groq is ~$0.02/hr with distil-large-v3, or ~$0.04/hr with whisper-large-v3-turbo. I believe OpenAI comes out to like ~$0.36/hr.
We do this internally with our tool that automatically transcribes local government council meetings right when they get uploaded to YouTube. It uses Groq by default, but I also added support for Replicate and Deepgram as backups because sometimes Groq errors out.
> We do this internally with our tool that automatically transcribes local government council meetings right when they get uploaded to YouTube
Doesn't YouTube do this for you automatically these days within a day or so?
I don't think a simple diff is the way to go, at least for what I'm interested in. What I care about more is the overall accuracy of the summary—not the word-for-word transcription.
The test I want to setup is using LLMs to evaluate the summarized output and see if the primary themes/topics persist. That's more interesting and useful to me for this exercise.
I read a transcript + summary of that exact talk. I thought it was fine, but uninteresting, I moved on.
Later I saw it had been put on youtube and I was on the train, so I watched the whole thing at normal speed. I had a huge number of different ideas, thoughts and decisions, sparked by watching the whole thing.
This happens to me in other areas too. Watching a conference talk in person is far more useful to me than watching it online with other distractions. Watching it online is more useful again than reading a summary.
Going for a walk to think about something deeply beats a 10 minute session to "solve" the problem and forget it.
Slower is usually better for thinking.
There is just so much content out there. And context is everything. If the person sharing it had led with some specific ideas or thoughts I might have taken the time to watch and looked for those ideas. But in the context it was received—a quick link with no additional context—I really just wanted the "gist" to know what I was even potentially responding to.
In this case, for me, it was worth it. I can go back and decide if I want to watch it. Your comment has intrigued me so I very well might!
++ to "Slower is usually better for thinking"
In the idea of making more of an OpenAI minute, don't send it any silence.
E.g.
ffmpeg -i video-audio.m4a \
-af "silenceremove=start_periods=1:start_duration=0:start_threshold=-50dB:\
stop_periods=-1:stop_duration=0.02:stop_threshold=-50dB,\
apad=pad_dur=0.02" \
-c:a aac -b:a 128k output_minpause.m4a -y
Clearly the next thing we need to test is removing all the vowels from words, or something like that :)