upvote
I am part of the problem and recently started turning them on after realizing they were proving to be very useful inputs when using chatbots with connectors to tools that can see the transcripts. It's made scribing notes mostly a ritual and not a practical benefit.

Before I turned it on I asked my team if they had any objections. Silence for eight seconds before saying if anyone was uncomfortable objecting in the group they could reach out to me individually. No one ever did. The only request was that everyone internal get copied on the notes so they could correct them if needed.

These are company decisions to have these connectors and privacy choices. It's their data and their risk. There has never been an illusion that anything said, written, or done at work is private from the company. At home I partake in none of this.

reply
> Before I turned it on I asked my team if they had any objections.

Did you check with internal counsel?

> There has never been an illusion that anything said, written, or done at work is private from the company

The entire industry is one court case away from banning transcription. Not many companies want every word of every meeting legally discoverable - in the past, meetings were used to avoid having a written record. The implications of ubiquitous transcriptions haven't percolated yet, I give 1-3 years (or until the next major case)

reply
This is all of course sanctioned by leadership and the teams who have standing (legal, IT, cybersecurity). Just because something is allowed doesn't mean I'll opt to do it. If I worked somewhere that hasn't been using corporate spyware on all employee laptops and face recognition around the building since long before auto transcription came in vogue I might feel differently about the decision to embrace the surveillance for productivity.

I don't have the authority to make the meaningful decisions, just to do my job efficiently.

reply
I'm surprised lawyers aren't jumping all over this, not with you specifically, just generically everywhere.

Casual meetings can have misconstrued words.

reply
What’s the legal theory here?
reply
Someone sues, and stuff comes out in discovery.
reply
Automatic transcripts of online meetings are amazing: it means that you can just shoot the shit for half an hour and then have Claude bang out a deck and MVP for review. And no one has to waste time and attention on making notes.

Even better if it's a feedback session or people have notes and comments. You can have them all mock-implemented before you even send out the summary.

reply
Taking notes works your brain, helps your memory, and strengthens understanding.
reply
I learned very quickly in my undergraduate days that the act of physically writing down information was the best way for me personally to retain knowledge.

I’ve got over a decade of work experience now and I have like 100 notebooks filled with notes from nearly every day. I routinely find that my own notes differ from auto written transcripts of meetings. Mostly it’s minor things, but every once in a while the automatic transcription gets something critically wrong.

reply
I always used to take notes and casually read minutes out of habit after meetings and pick up on stuff that sounded weird and more and more recently that's been feeling like a superpower to just read things and think through the implications and raise them because people are not picking up on them.
reply
I am horrified of the idea that HR can listen/review every single ~private conversation, that may include frustrations with leadership, family problems, or personal health information that is shared with a trusted manager or coworker, not some HR person.
reply
Then these changes are actually a good thing because you get the opportunity to learn that they've had that power for years.
reply
Except that the summaries can be totally inaccurate. And then people think they have proof that so-and-so said something, when maybe they never said that.
reply
I've been in meeting where people turn off AI notes when real stuff gets discussed and turn it back on after. Seems like a good compromise as long as you trust that it's not going to get logged
reply
Its obviously getting logged
reply
> Even 1:1 conversations between direct managers and colleagues.

You can ask someone to turn it off.

reply
Not enough. Many people are running Superwhisper and the like on their machines that capture the audio stream directly out of the OS and applications. Even if all the cloud recorders are removed, you must assume that unless you have the entire security provenance chain of the other person's device verified, that your words are being recorded. And fed to whatever nebulous cloud AI and services that person uses.

Even then, it's easy enough now to have a second device capture the audio, like a phone as well. Being able to reflect on meeting notes is such a powerful valuable thing for people, you can assume they are almost certainly going to be doing it.

reply
The world is becoming dystopian at a rapid pace... These capabilities will be weaponized against people in ways we can't even dream of yet.

We already have products that provide active countermeasures against recording devices, an audio jammer of sorts that renders microphones unable to pick up anything. I wonder how effective they are.

reply
Its often seen as an imposition to do so, so it depends on how the power structure runs if someone is comfortable asking
reply
You can still ask. If you're too afraid to even do that, then the alternative is to be guarded during the conversation. But you can choose which path to take.
reply
Really? In my everyday people always ask "Is it okay for my/our notetaker to join the meeting?"

Might be a German/European thing though...

reply
Yes I do this constantly? It has never been an issue.
reply
Yeah, if they refuse then that is also a signal about how much they truly value you (and not an insignificant one either).
reply
If someone refuses, then you can frame that it limits candor and vulnerability. If they still prefer to have it on, then you can simply be less open with them.
reply
Get your coworkers together and form a union.

I'm not even kidding. An individual has no protection, if it's workplace policy you can be fired for not following it.

If employees collectively challenge the policy an employer can not legally retaliate against collective action.

reply
One problem with this is that it's very easy to think of ways that having a recording of what was said in a meeting might benefit one or more of the participants, by letting them provide evidence later that another participant is lying about what was said in that meeting. An AI recording of a meeting might well protect your interests in court later.
reply
This is not a problem that needs an "AI" solution; small, cheap digital audio recorders have existed for decades and every consumer computer, from smartphones to laptops, has more than adequate udio recording capabilities.

I'm not even talking about a "we didn't computers in my day and we did just fine" old-man-yells-at-cloud objection here; there is no real benefit, wrt recording a meeting, that "AI" brings to the table.

reply
You might reasonably want a text transcript of spoken-language audio from a meeting and any computer technology that can do that is effectively some type of AI. In any case, I don't think there's a principled reason to be okay with every meeting at work being audio-recorded but to suddenly become not okay with it if there's a modern LLM involved doing speech-to-text; unless your actual objection is to LLMs as a technology or to the companies that are currently in the news for selling LLM-based software products.
reply
It's fine, a leak of your meeting to a potential competitor could result in as much as another meeting. ;-(
reply
Hilariously enough the answer is return to the office. I coordinate with my manager to do our 1:1s on days we're both in the office and I know we're not alone.
reply
[dead]
reply
[dead]
reply
>>Is there anything that I can do to minimize my exposure?<<

author a study that truthfully demonstrates an increased productivity, and by extension, reduction of costs, that appears in the absence of surveilance.

perhaps an ABC test of production under obvious surveillance, obvious lack of surveillance, and advisement of incidental surveilance at any time. this should be cross sectional and longitudinal, perhaps an exit survey to categorize the different productivity groups, such as we took longer because we knew we would have to work at a desk under a camera when we were done; vs the we could do it faster because, we knew we wouldnt be nagged about ergonimics, kinefficiency, or surruptitious movements.

reply