A case against AI Notetakers
AI notetakers are great - but is the time saved enough to make up for losing the influence over what’s recorded in the official record?
I spent a lot of time in my early career taking the meeting notes. Truth be told I never really stopped - if you’re on a call with me there’s always a notebook open for me to record actions, insights, agreements etc.
I’ve often joke I’ve outsourced my brain to my notebook, but the truth is that the act of writing something down has always served as a memory aid for me. It’s how I revised for exams.
But then along came the AI notetakers.
I pay for Fathom - I think it’s a great tool. When I started using it I stopped writing my notes.
Recently however, I’ve had to start again. Even while running Fathom on my calls.
Because as good as the AI notetaker is, if I don’t write something down in my notes I don’t remember. And somehow it’s easier to flip through my notebook than it is to scroll through a transcription or re-watch a video.
The AI transcription is still very useful. Even if it occasionally confuses my accent and comes up with wildly ridiculous captions.
But in discussing this challenge recently over dinner - should I stop paying for a tool which is essentially replicating my own work, my brilliant mother in law shared something very interesting:
There are practical and political factors at play when we decide what gets captured in the notes.
Which objections get recorded? How much of the debate is written down?
After all, history is recorded by the winners. So it stands to reason that what gets recorded, remembered and actioned is down to the notetaker.
We’ll be talking about this more in our next webinar on 16th October - Combating AI-related cognitive decline in graduate recruits - practical advice and guidance. Hope to see you there!
