Nathan Labenz: preference

Transcript context

…you. And wouldn't it just be nice if mostly we could have this conversation in an authentic and human way that we don't type on a piece of paper and then add my voice to and then add my robot face to? We can mostly just talk as humans, but then in post, we could do all kinds of magic to just make it look like I was wearing makeup and looked amazing and had a great outfit on and the light was perfect and I didn't say anything stupid. And so that's kind of like the, that's the vision, that's the vision that I have for Descript is sort of really making the killer use case that we're better than anyone at augmented human recorded media. So that's where we really like to build. Yeah, cool. That's quite interesting. In the, I guess I'm sort of feeling out the kind of strategic landscape of models. It sounds like some of the models that you're building, maybe there are no offerings on the market. You know, I've not seen one, for example, that does like jump cut smoothing. And I could also imagine, you know, you've got kind of like retake removal now. And that's been there for a while, but I'm also guilty all too often of vocalized pauses, so we can remove ums and uhs and that kind of stuff in a pretty smooth way. And it strikes me that the structured nature of the edits that people make in Descript is an unbelievable data set for some of these use cases that probably just nobody else really has even collected the data on. So I feel like I'm... intuiting kind of probably where the core advantage lies based on all the work that people have done in the product over time. But maybe you could tell us a little bit more about like how you think about the data flywheel. And I guess, you know, if I was going to say like, what do I want Underlord to be better at? It would be some of these like subtle things where I stuttered, I repeated myself, whatever. And then, but which one do I cut? Do I cut the first version that I said or do I cut the second version that I said? It's not always, I think you'd usually kind of think, maybe cut the first one if you felt the need to say it again, then probably the second would be better. It's not always the case. And often also when I highlight a word and hit ignore on it, then I kind of go back and watch that. that passage again to see like, how did that land? was it glitchy in any weird way or whatever? And I think if there was a model that could sort of make those marginal decisions well, where you kind of try this edit, try that edit and see which one looks better, that right now is like the bulk of the time that I spend in Descript that I would love to offload is kind of, I just made that edit, How does it look? Let me try the alt version. How does it look? Making good decisions there would be, I think, an amazing upgrade. It doesn't sound like that's something Google's going to solve anytime soon or anybody else. I don't know, maybe of other candidates out there, but. That sounds like one.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.