Arguable... it's OKish at best, definitely nowhere near as good as professional... then IMHO it's like spotting a spelling mistake in an official document, you instantly look for MORE mistakes then it become distracting. There is something powerful about trust that once it's broken, it's hard to get back. Once a spelling or here transcription mistake happens, then we brace for more (rationally so) and it becomes a very taxing endeavor.

So... sure STT progressed quite a bit but it's STILL not good enough in a lot of cases.

Case in point, IMHO when there is a choice, most people (everybody?) would rather have human made captions than AI ones.

I find it's great for doing all the piddly day-to-day crap that I don't want to put much brain power into, like writing cover letters and emailing the bank or whatever.

I think as long as it's used sparingly it can free you up to do stuff you'd rather be doing, but IMO where people go wrong is when they use it to do the stuff they want to be doing as well.

IT AGAIN NOW

reads like every corporate admemo. why sacrifice your voice? i preferred the original.

I preferred the first version.

However, in the art arena AI is frustrating when you need a very specific image and not just a 'a tree a dog a bird and a farmhouse' AI art is getting better with text in the image but still makes some mistakes there. AI does poorly when you try to use it as a search engine : "What movie had a ball shaped robot" might bring back any answer. Warning though - AI is getting better at hands and spurious limbs.