Gemini team just released Gemini 3.5 Transcribe that’s supposed to be good at this; it’s available via api: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...
You can set it "Push to talk" mode (like a walkie-talkie radio), and when you're done talking and release the button, it can paste the text into any text field.
You can even replicate ChatGPT voice conversation mode, by having Handy as your speech input, and then (I forgot the extension) enabling a speech-to-text model for OpenCode. Surprisingly relaxing flow for certain tasks, like tweaking a website's styles.
I prompt it to:
"Attached (or underneath) is the transcript of a self recording i've done with tons of rambling and some incorrect words transcriptions, please do a pass clearing out and arranging any typos or possible misunderstandings. Keep original in parenthesis when not sure if it's a misunderstanding. Do not summarize or alter the nature of the content, simply tidy the transcript."
In case it's helpful to anyone else using it, at first it felt a bit slow to me, because there was a noticeable pause after I finished a message before it would quickly type it all out. I changed the input method from direct to clipboard and it's way faster now, almost instantaneous.
I am especially interested in this part. Could you please share the prompt you are using to instruct the LLM to clean up the dictation? Thanks in advance!
My prompt is pretty simple:
- Intro of the purpose (faithful, high-quality summaries of meeting transcripts useful for readers who did not attend the meeting)
- Some basic rules
- Summarize only what is actually said in the transcript.
- If a speaker's name isn't clear from the transcript, describe them generically (e.g. "a participant") rather than guessing
- If the transcript is a fragment or cuts off, say so rather than inventing a resolution
- Only state a causal or explanatory link between two facts (e.g. why someone is absent) if that link is clearly stated in the transcript
- Preserve relative time references precisely rather than flattening them. If a speaker says something will happen "in two hours" don't reword it as "today" or "same day"
- Maintain the original voice and framing to keep original intent
- Attempt to infer meeting attendance based on who actually spoke or was spoken to
- Prefer plain, direct sentences over compound or clever phrasing
- Respond directly with the summary. Do not preface it with phrases like "Here is a summary" or "Based on the transcript".
- A preferred structure for the summary, with examples
- An instruction to attempt correction of mis-transcribed words based on the included JSON configuration, but only if the certainty is high. If unsure, leave as-is, but add (spelling?) after the word to flag it.
- The JSON config as a string.
Because I have seemingly mixed opinions on it, on one hand, I did put the effort but on the other, the output is AI generated so I am unsure about sharing it with others (because they might think its AI generated)
Do you use it for very small edits (removing just the uhhm's?) or for slightly more edits.
The way that I use it sometimes is that while thinking, I will write something which can sometimes make me feel as if a better re-write can better explain my thoughts or rephrasing it as such. For example. I will think about X topic, connect it to Y, then try to add some more points about X again.
I found LLM's to do a really decent job at generating the final outputs as such, but as I said, I am left sometimes feeling a little confused as to sharing it or not because of it being AI generated and the end user not knowing if I put an actual effort into creation of it or not.
Should I try to share the actual transcript of it as well, I really wish if some good ethics and internet ettiquette could be established about it.
"what are your observations on feeling as if sharing that output though?"
and "Should I try to share the actual transcript of it as well, I really wish if some good ethics and internet ettiquette could be established about it."
could you rephrase the question
for STT, it's literally you saying it, with a model transcribing, and then another model correcting a little, and you also have control over editing it. I don't think any of the arguments on "etiquette re: sharing AI output" apply here.
Yes, for doing extremely mild edits (like just removing uhh's etc.) this might be true
but I sometimes feel as if writing can allow me to shift paragraphs, so if I am writing para 1, para 2, I can shift back to para 1 and write another sentence in it and edit some parts of para 1 to include that point
but when I am doing STT, although I can move towards the other para, I find myself just speaking in a complete flow and just write in para 2 only.
Thus when I ask AI to write, I would prefer it to move the statements to appropriate paragraphs and in just general, create a more comprehensible viewpoint from all the STT text that I had written.
This does generate AI generated text which can be detected as such. Uploading it on blogs makes me feel as if people might read what they might consider "AI slop" and so the ethics part (as I myself don't wish to read AI slop)
the problem with AI written or edited texts is that I am unsure of how much effort the other person has put in (just a single prompt or a detailed thought was put in), and I feel as if, others feel the same way.
Should one try to show the rough draft as well to try to show that it was an effort which was human generated or that human effort was used, but that means having a proper disclosure that it was AI-generated/AI-assisted, which I feel as if offputs a lot people (including me) as because of the above logic, that there's still friction for the user within testing if real effort was put into place and I am unsure how effective sharing drafts of it could be.
I don't want my blogs to be tainted and treated as AI-slop because I care about them so I am unsure of what to do. I have multiple things that I have written which if I pass through AI can create some meaningful blog piece but as it stands, they are rough drafts and I find myself putting low efforts or being lazy in actually editing them myself as well (and potentially putting in multiple hours) when AI can be used to help create a more polished version just as well and get across my point.
The usecase for small models like this is making on-device STT/TTS more accessable. This is important if your usecase is sensitive to either privacy or latency, but this comes at the cost of quality.
My experience has been that these small TTS models are unexpectedly good if your audio is in distribution (western accents, higher quality audio, common vocabulary), but pretty quickly degrade as you move outside of that. They often dont support more complex features such as diarization, multilingual, or realtime streaming either.
It's a very compelling aspect of the problem.
If you can get a model under certain size thresholds, that means you can eliminate latency domains. For example, if the model is able to fit entirely inside L3, the latency of servicing requests drops by an order of magnitude (or better) compared with a model that resides in L3+DRAM.
And even when it's getting it right, and if there's only one Walmart in Beaverton, it still to this day needs to ask "One option is Walmart on Expressway Road in Beaverton...." Maybe it's correct in its 0% confidence level there, since it's so bad, but... I don't get how you could design something that bad, even before LLMs existed. I feel like I could do better, even using their Speech-to-text engine, with the processing backend built of pure regexes and if/elses.
"Hey Siri, play [song]"
Leads to, take your pick:
- "You'll need to unlock your iPhone first."
- "I couldn't find [song] on Podcasts" (??????)
- "Playing [a totally different song]"
- "I couldn't find any music by [song, but it thinks it's a band]"
- "Playing music by [song, again it thinks it's a band]"
And don't forget whatever the current phrasing is for "I'm sorry, my shit's all fucked up" and "My network connectivity had a blip and I'm unwilling to retry" and "Even though I have on-device STT models, and now LLMs too, and an on-device database of your music, which is downloaded, I won't bother without the cloud.
but once you calm down and stop hyperventilating from my suggestion, you'll see that the only reasonable and pragmatic course of action is to move to android and linux.
If you can do something with an extremely limited vocab, voice recognition was fine using off the shelf microchips in the 70s, where you wired in a microphone connection and had discrete pins for output actions.
LLMs are basically only useful for utterly free form transcription, but that doesn't actually help you turn that into tasks to perform and parameters for those tasks
The core "problem" in voice recognition is that freeform speech is an abysmal UX paradigm and provides zero discoverability, and LLMs IMO have not improved the situation of actually doing anything with the resulting text.
The other day I tried to prompt Gemini 3 times to tell me what the heck the business with a weird sign I saw was. The first prompt worked with a stale location context and therefore was way off, the second prompt had to reach out to google servers, and came back with recognizing the physical space I was discussing, but told me that I was talking about an event that takes place in the museum next door that I had told the model was next door to the business in question, the third try it still seemed to understand where I was referencing, but insisted I couldn't possibly be talking about anything there.
It took 1 second on google maps to find exactly what I was referring to, which was the business in Google's system located at the exact map location the model had found.
I'm sick and tired of people turning to LLM and "AI" tools to pretend they are better, when the problem is that these companies don't even use existing good solutions because they just don't care.
It's also really terrible at recognizing names of my contacts, probably because those names are not represented in the training data.
I was researching STT for people with speech disorders two years ago and essentially everything was boiling down to three problems at the end of the day - data scarcity, irregularity of way of speaking and thus constant ambiguity in translation, and individual differences in speech patterns among patients.
In some cases, this may improve function for a few hours. Best regards =3