For those who go through this, I’m really curious how important the transcript was.
In terms of (marginal) work, this was something like: - In person prep+setup: 3 hours - Recording: 1.5 hours - Editing: ~$300, plus 4 hours of my time - Transcription: $140, plus around ~5 hours of our team’s time.
(There was also a lot of time in me sort of messing around and learning the various pieces, but much of that could be later improved. Also, I was really aggressive on removing filler words and pauses. I think this is unusual, in part because it’s resource-intensive to do well. )
I’d like to do something like, “Only do transcripts for videos that get 50 upvotes, or we are pretty sure will get 50 upvotes”, but I’m not sure. (My guess is that poor transcripts, which means almost anything that takes less than ~$200/3 hours time, will barely be good enough to be useful)
I liked the transcript, much easier to skim and skip around than a video. At different points in my life/career I would have liked the video more—having both seems like an accessibility win.
I liked that this is organized—the table-of-contents is a great way to explore and jump around.
I wish there was some summary of key points or takeaways. It seems like that could have gone with or in place of the sections overview at the top. It seems like a bunch of care/preparation went into having good questions, so I think here I’d have a lot of trust in the interviewer’s brief.
Also I think it would be more skim-able if there were clearer typographic indications of who is speaking what paragraph. Not exactly sure how to do it on the AF site, but having each speaker highlighted in a slightly different color, or indentation, or something like that. Right now my assumption is that there isn’t a great way to do that on this site.
It seems like a bunch of care/preparation went into having good questions, so I think here I’d have a lot of trust in the interviewer’s brief.
Just fli—in this case, we spent some time in the beginning making a very rough outline of what would be good to talk about. Much of this is stuff Eli put forward. I’ve also known Eli for a while, so had a lot of context going in.
I’m not a relevant stakeholder as I don’t currently work on AI alignment, but just in case it’s useful here are my two cents. I skipped the video and merely read the transcript. If there wasn’t a transcript I wouldn’t bother with watching the video. I strongly prefer transcripts to audio files in general as I can skim the transcripts and search for keywords.
For those who go through this, I’m really curious how important the transcript was.
In terms of (marginal) work, this was something like:
- In person prep+setup: 3 hours
- Recording: 1.5 hours
- Editing: ~$300, plus 4 hours of my time
- Transcription: $140, plus around ~5 hours of our team’s time.
(There was also a lot of time in me sort of messing around and learning the various pieces, but much of that could be later improved. Also, I was really aggressive on removing filler words and pauses. I think this is unusual, in part because it’s resource-intensive to do well. )
I’d like to do something like, “Only do transcripts for videos that get 50 upvotes, or we are pretty sure will get 50 upvotes”, but I’m not sure. (My guess is that poor transcripts, which means almost anything that takes less than ~$200/3 hours time, will barely be good enough to be useful)
I liked the transcript, much easier to skim and skip around than a video. At different points in my life/career I would have liked the video more—having both seems like an accessibility win.
I liked that this is organized—the table-of-contents is a great way to explore and jump around.
I wish there was some summary of key points or takeaways. It seems like that could have gone with or in place of the sections overview at the top. It seems like a bunch of care/preparation went into having good questions, so I think here I’d have a lot of trust in the interviewer’s brief.
Also I think it would be more skim-able if there were clearer typographic indications of who is speaking what paragraph. Not exactly sure how to do it on the AF site, but having each speaker highlighted in a slightly different color, or indentation, or something like that. Right now my assumption is that there isn’t a great way to do that on this site.
Just fli—in this case, we spent some time in the beginning making a very rough outline of what would be good to talk about. Much of this is stuff Eli put forward. I’ve also known Eli for a while, so had a lot of context going in.
I’m not a relevant stakeholder as I don’t currently work on AI alignment, but just in case it’s useful here are my two cents. I skipped the video and merely read the transcript. If there wasn’t a transcript I wouldn’t bother with watching the video. I strongly prefer transcripts to audio files in general as I can skim the transcripts and search for keywords.
I just listen to these type of videos as podcasts and don’t read transcripts.