That’s exactly what this article, sent to me by a valued Stenonymous reader, raises.
This has been my position for some time. We could be sitting in a bubble ready to pop. You’d never know it because the tech-heads have enough money to create spin media all day, every day for the next 100 years.
I’ve written countless times about this kind of stuff. It boils down to AI is a solvable problem. Solving a problem does not inherently make money, nor does it necessarily make enough money to justify its existence. This was the issue I had with it being forced on us by our manufacturers too. ASR has a much more viable moneymaking model (replacing us). It’s struggling to do that with all the millions and billions invested in ASR in the last 20 or 30 years. And in an industry that’s only about 3 billion a year, what are they really gaining?
Pyrrhic victory scenario, really. There are all these overblown estimates of the market for speech recognition being $50 billion by 2029 or whatever, but we’ve been in the speech recognition game for like 200 years. Court reporting market’s like 3. Captioning market’s like 6. Where’s all the other money from “speech recognition” going to come from? We already have automated customer service and the like. Why would companies pay more for a fancier version?
Maybe somebody with an inside line can come in and comment.
The full communication between Churchill and Stalin which included a mention of captioning. Found on the internet via a questionable source.
Captioning has been helping humans understand each other since 1944.
No pressure, captioners& CART providers.
(To the extent they differentiate in a modern context.)
Let’s not mention interpreters…. 😜
P.S. (Gets ranty.)
My TikTok recently hit the 1,000-follower minimum for LIVE sessions. Not too sure if I’ll use it, but it might be an interesting way to put attention on our interests.
Christopher Day’s TikTok finally reaches the 1000-follower threshold for TikTok LIVE
If there are any fence people watching, it’s time to join the winning team.
I draw some inspiration from a Doctor Who episode I’ve written about before called Heaven Sent. Spoilers. The Doctor is forced into a position where a dark and ominous figure chases him slowly and without relent. If it touches him, he’ll die. It’s kind of like that hypothetical scenario sometimes posted to social media, “would you take $x million dollars if a snail that could not be killed would chase you and if it touched you, you die?”
He gets to a point where his exit is blocked by a wall of diamond, or crystal, or whatever. It’s a solid wall he has no hope of breaking, but he starts punching it, having wired up a way to revive himself each time he is killed by the ominous figure that catches up with him at the rock wall. He does this for billions of years, eventually managing his way through the wall and to freedom, destroying his grim-reaper-like stalker.
Doctor Who Heaven Sent Quote stolen from Hellyesdoctorquotes.tumblr.com
The Doctor says “you might think that’s a hell of a long time. Personally, I think that’s a hell of a bird.”
But I think it’s time to reveal something about my writing. It’s not a love of stenography or court reporting that keeps me going. I think perhaps it was once. But that was a long time ago. I think longtime fans will know where I’m headed with this.
It’s my sense of esprit de corps with the people of this profession and those that do what I do that drives me. I’ve spent a long time writing about this stuff, I know that they’re moving to privatize the public sector jobs. I know the law was broken to do it. And I know this all really impacts people’s lives. The dark ominous figure following me? Rejection. But I’ve had correspondence with people who’ve had work withheld from them, had clients stolen, people who have really suffered under the current market conditions. In fact, there’s one sufferer out there, though not a traditional reporter, that had to go into landscaping. The people I write for are the voiceless victims of the systems we operate in.
One thing I’ve always been misunderstood on is my view about change. People think I’m fighting for everything to stay the same forever. No. Change is coming whether we like it or not. As time rolls on circumstances change and the world itself changes. For example, it’s a fact that there’s more energy in our atmosphere every year. You don’t think that has effects the majority of us can’t fathom? You don’t think that impacts the rise in the cost of living (think air conditioning and electricity prices)? You don’t think those cost of living increases impact the people on the lower rungs of income in this profession? You don’t think losing those people hurts us? Have you ever tried to climb a ladder missing its lower rungs?
So if change is going to happen, we have two real choices, lead the way or be led. And your leaders, the multimillion dollar corporations that represent a huge portion of the revenue in this field and the national association that eats millions of dollars every year but can’t seem to stand up to fraudulent shell nonprofits like a good blog can, are working against you, if not through directly detrimental action, then through inaction that sometimes feels calculated to produce the least effective outcome for the working reporter. We know people will hurt other people if their leaders tell them to. We also know the illusory truth effect. Bombarded with the same message over and over, we come to believe it.
Those leaders did this to you. “Realtime is the future”, “good reporters will always have work”, “we have lots of work for you”, “you are special”, “you are irreplaceable”, “be careful what you post, agencies monitor this group”, “what can we do? There’s an unprecedented shortage.”
Many of us have been conditioned to believe that if we are realtime, we will always have a job. This is false, and corporations have moved into calling digital realtime, which will eventually devalue the skill — mathematical and economic fact. As close to predictable as possible. Yet many of you don’t believe it.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe that if someone is lower income on the reporting scale, they are bad. “I have work, so my skills must be good, so your skills must be bad.” This damages our esprit de corps and makes us less likely to work together to solve problems. It also silences those who are struggling, because they internalize that the problem is them and that they are bad.
Many of us have been conditioned to view companies through a lens of benevolence or fear. This makes us less likely to act when our interests conflict with those companies.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe we are genuinely irreplaceable. Again, this makes us less likely to band together to solve problems or even admit that there are problems.
Some of this is, as best I can tell, the direct result of actions from our leaders. Some of it involves groupthink truisms we told ourselves. The end result is the same. We are conditioned to do nothing while the people who are motivated to lead change for financial gain siphon the money out of our pockets and into theirs. This is being done through political, social, and sometimes illegal means that is difficult to identify and address.
Conditioned to do nothing while you’re being robbed.
A still image of Stenonymous source Joshua Edwards, RDR, CRC, StenoCaptions LLC leaking the news.
StenoCaptions LLC Captioner Emily Nicholson displayed during CBS Mornings segment with Senator John Fetterman
This one wrote itself. I must say, the case for us is on display. A United States senator processes things differently due to his stroke. To be quite honest, I feel a deep empathy there, I too feel I process things differently since my medical incident, though thankfully it was not a stroke.
But this different processing does not make us incapable. And it’s people, largely unsung heroes like Emily Nicholson and other captioners, that assist us when that processing needs to include captioning.
So thank you to every last one of you for making this field shine.
And thank you to Emily Nicholson. Not all of us are brave enough to caption for CBS.
StenoCaptions LLC issues statement after the 2023 attack on Israel.
I’m still on my hiatus, but my best friend’s company issued a statement recently, so it’s getting recognition.
To be honest, I remember a time when it was taboo for businesses to make even the slightest comment on social issues. Now it seems much more commonplace. Perhaps it’s for the better. Society lived under this false belief that work and life should be separate at all costs, don’t let one affect the other. But that’s not realistic, is it? What we do is very much a part of who we are, and sharing our positions gives us an opportunity to reconsider our own views or strengthen our communal beliefs.
To be honest, I share their view entirely. It’s worded perfectly. It condemns what was done, unlike some sources in the media. It acknowledges the suffering of everyone involved. It doesn’t re-traumatize the audience with a retelling of the gruesome things that are known to have occurred.
There’s not much I can do from my current station in life, but I will vote for anyone that I believe will work to bring an end to senseless violence like what the world has just witnessed.
Thank you, Wendy & Joshua, for having the courage to tie your brand to your moral compass. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s a big step forward in the evolution of modern business.
In full disclosure, I’ve made two. (YouTube)(TikTok)
If you follow me on social media, you’ve likely seen these before, but the point still stands: Companies can make outrageous claims about their technology. It’s down to consumers to “trust, but verify.”
The joke is that in both videos I go on and on about how my programs are better than stenographers because they “type faster.” And they do. But the trick is that one is making up gibberish transcripts and the other is retyping text that it’s already been given. So I’m going “yeah, this technology is FASTER!” But that doesn’t mean anything. It can never take your job. It doesn’t learn. It’s a simple script I wrote that anyone can play with online.
Similarly, with AI, be wary about claims. To those not in the know, it seems like magic. Those in the know have an economic incentive to tell you it is magic and that you should buy it. Same goes for your clients.
If any attorneys are watching, “they’ll” tell you we’re replaceable long before we are, as they have been for about 50 years. You guys cross-examine liars all day, so I’m sure you can figure this one out.
Most stenographers become work-ready at 225 words per minute
This article from StackDiary was passed to me by a longtime Stenonymous reader. This paragraph captured it all for me.
StackDiary post claims Zoom’s updated terms of service allow for the company to use users’ data without an opt-out option.
This has me thinking about the captioners. If you are feeding captions through Zoom, can it be used by the company to train AI to do what you do? In recent years, I am a skeptic that believes it may be impossible for AI to reach the levels of accuracy of a qualified captioner. But the possibility is there, and it already has one New York business owner talking. When asked about it, Joshua Edwards, co-owner of StenoCaptions LLC, said “Wendy and I, co-owners at StenoCaptions LLC, are already talking about not working in Zoom anymore. As highly trained stenographers who are committed to excellence, we’re not going to train our replacement.”
I also reached out to Norma Miller from White Coat Captioning. “I’m told that they have backed off on this already late [Monday] following the huge backlash online. However, my trust in them has been irreparably damaged, so I will not be backing down from my company’s official policy, a copy of which is attached. It will be a minor inconvenience to some clients if they choose to continue using Zoom, but it is the best solution we have available to us at this time, and it works really well.”
As for the attached policy, take a look.
Official policy of White Coat Captioning regarding Zoom’s change in policy, which allowed no opt-out option.
I’m hopeful to get the discussion rolling. Blog posts with pictures get a lot more attention, so I picked out one that I hope helps bring attention to this important issue.
Stenonymous versus AI at Stenonymous.com
Addendum:
After this post went live I was sent information by an accessibility advocate I follow on Twitter. It appears that the platform will not use “chat” content to change its AI. Big thanks to Meryl Evans.
Had the privilege of reviewing this article in the Broadway News about our very own Joshua Edwards and the company he co-owns, StenoCaptions LLC. There’s a paywall and I must respect the owners’ copyright by law and ethics, so I can only really give snippets and commentary. But stenographers everywhere are making the news, and that’s a wonderful thing.
“This year’s unscripted ceremony marked Edwards’ fifth Tonys and — what he says — was the most liberating of them all.” In brief, because of solidarity with the writer strike, the event was unscripted. As stated in the article, reported by Ruthie Fierberg, the script is usually 200 pages long. That script is used for captioning preparation. This year, Joshua had to go in without it.
The article turns out to be a real teaching moment. Joshua explained briefs and dictionaries, as well as talking about the importance of accessibility. Towards the end of the article, he’s quoted as saying “the people who must demand a live human captioner are the consumers who depend on us, our accuracy and reliability.” I find this to be very true. If consumers do not take a stand, they will be given whatever slop providers want to give.
I don’t know if you’ll end up reading this, but thank you, Joshua, for representing and showing people that stenography is modern, capable, and ready to meet the demands of captioning consumers. There have been many in modern times that have tried to obfuscate that truth about stenographers, court reporters and captioners alike. Unfortunately for them, the truth remains the truth whether you like it or not.
And thank you, Broadway News and Ruthie Fierberg, for a great article.
Ai-Media acquired Alternative Communication Services in May 2020. According to the recollection of one source, there was a little buzz about it at the time and there were some who were concerned about the replacement of captioning providers and some that didn’t believe such a thing would happen. Well, they’ve been touting something called LEXI 3.0.
“…uses the power of AI to deliver results rivaling human captions, at a fraction of the cost.” – Ai-Media“Sad to see this. Rivalling human captioners? You have (or had) an amazing team there — please don’t sell them short in the name of profit.” – Mike Rowell, RDR
This wasn’t the only post done on the matter.
“…AI to deliver results rivalling human captions, at a fraction of the cost.” – Ai-Media
So, I guess I really have to say to captioners what I have said to court reporters. If I get some funding behind me there’s a lot we can do. We could sponsor independent studies into the accuracy of AI versus human transcribers/captioners. What we have so far in that department is promising.
But even short of that level of funding, we could do more advertising to increase public awareness about misleading technology claims and perceptions, something that is hitting mainstream media right now. After all, as I reported on this blog, Microsoft said they had achieved tech as good as human transcribers back in 2016. Then it flopped in the Racial Disparities in Automatic Speech Recognition 2020 study. Verbit flip-flopped between its series A and series B funding, first talking about saving on manual labor and then saying that they would not take the human transcriber out. So now when Ai-Media claims its LEXI 3.0 is rivaling human transcribers, it makes me wonder if this might be just another claim that they’re using to sell, sell, sell.
The best part? They don’t even have to lie to mislead. Check out the post above. “The world’s most advanced and accurate automatic captioning solution!” This is what’s referred to in legal circles as puffery. Even if it’s BS, it’s probably not false advertising. “Watch our video to see how LEXI 3.0 uses the power of AI to deliver results rivalling human captions, at a fraction of the cost.” Well, anybody can declare something rivals something. I declare apples rival oranges and Stenonymous rivals Veritext. It doesn’t mean anything. At the end of the day, if the AI gets 40% and captioners get 90%, they still rival each other, it’s just that one would be a really poor rival. At a fraction of the cost? Does that mean all of the cost savings are passed directly to consumers? It sure isn’t a guarantee.
This is why I’m so forward about educating reporters on marketing tricks and propaganda techniques. We are all subjected to media that influences our thoughts, and those thoughts go on to influence our actions. If a person is constantly inundated with the message that technology is exponentially growing and that it’s coming for all the jobs, they won’t seek out information that challenges that belief, like all the links I posted above that most people probably skip over out. Thanks confirmation bias and busy schedules.
Meanwhile, there’s a totally alternate reality where we start dumping money into calling out these companies and working out exactly how true their claims are so that we can share it with the world.
On Reddit, I spotted a thread that talked about the H3 podcast and how upon requesting captions other members of the audience insisted auto captions were adequate. The podcast itself apparently stated it was too difficult to do the captioning for hours of content.
My audience is mostly stenographers that support good captions on all content. I’ll be preaching to the choir here. The only thing between us and that dream are the greedy corps and individuals that have no problem being rewarded for their success — they’ll take every dime you’ll give — but they have a lot of problems making simple provisions for the disabled.
Redditor discusses the failure of the H3 podcast to provide adequate captions for the deaf.
It’s my position that we need to be firm about this and keep pushing for the expansion of stenographic writers in captioning. No method is perfect, but auto captions and crowdsourcing are failing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Do we accept that or do we speak out about it?
We need a significant increase in our numbers to be able to cover all the content out there. Hopefully investors see things like this and realize there’s a genuine need for a lot more stenographers. Pump students up with stenographic and business education and set them loose on the market. It’d give this field the tools it needs to fight for the disabled. I believe so strongly in this that I myself might look into school funding.
If anybody from H3 Podcast stumbles across this, your rep is going to take a hit if you keep letting this situation go unresolved. Don’t let it get to that point and just spend the piddly $100 or $200 it would take you to caption your content per hour. If stenographer prices are really a problem for whatever level of revenue you have, you could at the very least turn to transcribers, who are often taken advantage of and underpaid.
How can we spread this message beyond our social circles?
If anybody has a business, nonprofit, or media enterprise to promote in the court reporting, captioning, or stenotype services market, please consider taking the time to fill out about five questions in today’s survey.
The idea is pretty simple. I’m getting better and better at creating or brainstorming ads that drive engagement. With an actual budget for this activity, we could be promoting stenotype services to the general public and lawyers, and we could run ads 24/7 and direct consumers to the businesses that fund the advertising, perhaps via a public list or rating service. We could even perform regional marketing for businesses with a big enough budget. I can also pass my funders tips and tricks on marketing for their own social media pages, particularly as I learn more. I’ll find what works and what flops, and everybody funding the endeavor will benefit from it. If the budget gets really big, perhaps monthly ads could also be taken out in the law publications around the United States.
At this point, I’m still in the research stage of the idea, but my gut instinct to keep this sustainable but inexpensive would be each business paying about $200 a month, With just 8 businesses or sole proprietors in the group, we could run pro-stenographic social media ads year-round, which I guesstimate would generate somewhere in the ballpark of 120,000 engagements. That’s 120,000 chances per year to reach potential customers or audience members. According to at least one market research report, there are at least 3,000 businesses in our field. Just 2% of those businesses paying into it could generate 120,000 engagements a month. That’s steno coming into the feeds of over 1.4 million profiles a year.
I’m willing to change things up a bit, make the front page of Stenonymous.com a tad bit more corporate friendly, and try to attract more eyes to the businesses that sponsor the ads. I tried to raise the alarms on the corporate fraud. It’s not bringing in the funding needed to continue investigating and generating public interest. It’s time to do something different and try to bring more money into your businesses and get more eyes on your hard work. If the funders are serious about this, we could even do away with Stenonymous branding entirely, but I’d need commitments.
I have something of a theory related to our field and human interaction that might shed some light on this idea. I’ve noted that people have an innate need to be heard. How many times have we watched someone speak in court against their lawyer’s advice? Have you ever seen a child or adult with something to say and nobody who’ll listen? They become depressed, frustrated, anxious, angry. We know people need to be heard. What does the market do? It solves needs. Who better to solve the human need to be heard than the captioners, court reporters, and stenographers of the world? Now, stenographers can be very expensive, and there’s no real getting around that because every hour on our machine can mean 1 to 2 hours of transcription. But let’s say we started opening our stenotype service firms up to the public at an hourly rate? Say your page rate is $5.00 and you know you get about 60 pages an hour. You can offer $300/speaking hour stenotype services to the public without losing a dime. The general public could also book reporters on weekends and create additional income.
Economically, I would hope for a few things. 1. The constant barrage of advertisement for the public would educate more people about this field and bring more people into it, ending the shortage decisively. 2. The listing could create a kind of digital marketplace that educates consumers and helps them find the best businesses™️. 3. The barrage of marketing could bring investors onto the field looking to help businesses like yours grow and service more people (more $$$). 4. The funders might be able to network with each other to cover areas hit hardest by shortage, as long as they respect antitrust law, particularly against price fixing. 5. The increase in demand for the gold standard will draw more investors to open schools, which can then use the expected retirees over the next decade to educate the next generation. 6. We could set up a feedback system where businesses could receive or view feedback from consumers, enabling businesses to improve their business and create a more competitive marketplace. 7. The number of funders could grow to the point where we are able to offer group benefits to funders, such as legal referrals, where allowed by law. Many business owners have asked me questions about the law, which I’m happy to talk about but can’t give advice on, because I’m not a lawyer. Imagine a world where you could get that simple legal advice. 8. If the number of funders goes up, there is a very real possibility of locking the price at $200 rather than watching it soar with inflation, meaning fixed-cost advertising in a world with a lot of variables. 9. Diversifying income streams for “court reporting” (bringing in general consumers and getting out of the lawyer niche). 10. Captioners might benefit from more demand if more corporate boards and business owners know CART exists. How can consumers ask for something if they don’t know about it? 11. If wildly successful, scaling up to TV ads, podcasts, or more.
As an aside, we could also pump the market with speaking tips to help make our job easier. Joshua Edwards, creator of StenoMasters, is one of the best regional speakers around. I am quite hopeful that if I presented him with a budget, he’d help us educate the public. So much of the hassle from this job comes from speakers that don’t get what we do. We can make it easy for them.
I am in an interesting position. I’ve spent the last few years learning about this social media advertising stuff through firsthand experience. It would be a dream to use that to bring additional dollars to the market. I’m the man for the job. I’ve already shown my dedication to the futures of working reporters and our students. My site already gets thousands of visitors per month. Show the world we’re open for business, and we’ll be in business a long, long time.
So now it comes down to my audience. If you know businesses, suppliers, nonprofits, independent contractors, or schools that might help fund this initiative, please ask them to fill out the survey linked at the top. Thank you.
Ad data shared by Stenonymous.com in February 2023.
