> That article is from 8 years ago, accuracy is dramatically better today. We see a few percent error rate.
Your reading comprehension is not good.
The 2018 study is for "traditional" voice recognition, followed by a human transcriptionist, followed by physician review and signoff.
And it has much lower rates of errors than the 2025 study on LLM transcription.
Really, I think the problem is that the LLM transcribers pretend that they can do the work of the humans. Keep the humans, the accuracy would be probably be on par with Dragon. But then there's no reason to deal with LLM "hallucinations" at all, and the cost/value argument falls apart.
CAIS eliminates educated people who reduce errors, in order to shift profits to ... well, you.
Your reading comprehension is not good.
The 2018 study is for "traditional" voice recognition, followed by a human transcriptionist, followed by physician review and signoff.
And it has much lower rates of errors than the 2025 study on LLM transcription.
Really, I think the problem is that the LLM transcribers pretend that they can do the work of the humans. Keep the humans, the accuracy would be probably be on par with Dragon. But then there's no reason to deal with LLM "hallucinations" at all, and the cost/value argument falls apart.
CAIS eliminates educated people who reduce errors, in order to shift profits to ... well, you.