[HN Gopher] OpenAI charges by the minute, so speed up your audio
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI charges by the minute, so speed up your audio
Author : georgemandis
Score : 694 points
Date : 2025-06-25 13:17 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (george.mand.is)
(TXT) w3m dump (george.mand.is)
| georgemandis wrote:
| I was trying to summarize a 40-minute talk with OpenAI's
| transcription API, but it was too long. So I sped it up with
| ffmpeg to fit within the 25-minute cap. It worked quite well (Up
| to 3x speeds) and was cheaper and faster, so I wrote about it.
|
| Felt like a fun trick worth sharing. There's a full script and
| cost breakdown.
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| You could have kept quiet and started a cheaper than openai
| transcription business :)
| behnamoh wrote:
| Sure, but now the world is a better place because he shared
| something useful!
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| Pre-processing of the audio still a valid biz, multiple types
| of pre-processing might be valid
| hn8726 wrote:
| Or openai will do it themselves for transcription tasks
| ilyakaminsky wrote:
| I've already done that [1]. A fraction of the price, 24-hour
| limit per file, and speedup tricks like the OP's are welcome.
| :)
|
| [1] https://speechischeap.com
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| Nice. Don't expect you to spill the beans but is it doing
| OK (some customers?)
|
| Just wondering if I cam build a retirement out of APIs :)
| ilyakaminsky wrote:
| It's sustainable, but not enough to retire on at this
| point.
|
| > Just wondering if I cam build a retirement out of APIs
| :)
|
| I think it's possible, but you need to find a way to add
| value beyond the commodity itself (e.g., audio
| classification and speaker diarization in my case).
| ada1981 wrote:
| We discovered this last month.
|
| There is also prob a way to send a smaller sampler of audio at
| diff speeds and compare them to get a speed optimization with no
| quality loss unique for each clip.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >We discovered this last month.
|
| Nice. Any blog post, twitter comment or anything pointing to
| that?
| babuloseo wrote:
| source?
| brendanfinan wrote:
| would this also work for my video consisting of 10,000 PDFs?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44125598
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| I can't tell if this is a meme or not.
|
| And if someone had this idea and pitched it to Claude (the
| model this project was vibe coded with) it would be like "what
| a great idea!"
| raincole wrote:
| Geez, that repo[0] has 8k stars on Github?
|
| Are people just staring it for meme value or something? Is this
| a scam?
|
| [0]: https://github.com/Olow304/memvid
| mcc1ane wrote:
| Longer*
| canyp wrote:
| Came here just for this.
| simonw wrote:
| There was a similar trick which worked with Gemini versions prior
| to Gemini 2.0: they charged a flat rate of 258 tokens for an
| image, and it turns out you could fit more than 258 tokens of
| text in an image of text and use that for a discount!
| Graziano_M wrote:
| Well a picture is worth a thousand tokens.
| heeton wrote:
| A point on skimming vs taking the time to read something
| properly.
|
| I read a transcript + summary of that exact talk. I thought it
| was fine, but uninteresting, I moved on.
|
| Later I saw it had been put on youtube and I was on the train, so
| I watched the whole thing at normal speed. I had a huge number of
| different ideas, thoughts and decisions, sparked by watching the
| whole thing.
|
| This happens to me in other areas too. Watching a conference talk
| in person is far more useful to me than watching it online with
| other distractions. Watching it online is more useful again than
| reading a summary.
|
| Going for a walk to think about something deeply beats a 10
| minute session to "solve" the problem and forget it.
|
| Slower is usually better for thinking.
| pluc wrote:
| Seriously this is bonkers to me. I, like many hackers, hated
| school because they just threw one-size-fits-all knowledge at
| you and here we are, paying for the privilege to have that in
| every facet of our lives.
|
| Reading is a pleasure. Watching a lecture or a talk and feeling
| the pieces fall into place is great. Having your brain work out
| the meaning of things is surely something that defines us as a
| species. We're willingly heading for such stupidity, I don't
| get it. I don't get how we can all be so blind at what this is
| going to create.
| hooverd wrote:
| If you're not listening to summaries of different audiobooks
| at 2x speed in each ear you're not contentmaxing.
| lovestory wrote:
| Or just use notebookLM to convert your books into an hour
| long podcasts /s
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I am genuinely curious how well this would go. There are
| so many books I "should" read, but will never get around
| to doing it. A one hour podcast would be more engaging
| than reading a Wikipedia summary.
|
| On the gripping hand, there are probably already
| excellent 10/30/60 minute book summaries on YouTube or
| wherever which are not going to hallucinate plot points.
| LanceH wrote:
| Read the title and go.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| > We're willingly heading for such stupidity, I don't get it.
| I don't get how we can all be so blind at what this is going
| to create.
|
| Your doomerism and superiority doesn't follow from your
| initial "I like many hackers don't like one size fits all".
|
| This is literally offering you MANY sizes and you have the
| freedom to choose. Somehow you're pretending pushed down
| uniformity.
|
| Consume it however you want and come up with actual
| criticisms next time?
| colechristensen wrote:
| University didn't agree with me mostly because I can't pay
| attention to the average lecturer. Getting bored in between
| words or while waiting for them to write means I absorbed
| very little and had to teach myself nearly everything.
|
| Audiobooks before speed tools were the worst (are they
| _trying_ to speak extra slow?) But when I can speed things up
| comprehension is just fine.
| parpfish wrote:
| The worst part about talks/lectures is that once you lose
| the thread, the rest is meaningless. If my mind wanders a
| bit 5 minutes in to an hour long talk, the rest of that
| hour is a lost cause
| bisby wrote:
| > I, like many hackers, hated school because they just threw
| one-size-fits-all knowledge at you
|
| "This specific knowledge format doesnt work for me, so I'm
| asking OpenAI to convert this knowledge into a format that is
| easier for me to digest" is exactly what this is about.
|
| I'm not quite sure what you're upset about? Unless you're
| referring to "one size fits all knowledge" as simplified
| topics, so you can tackle things at a surface level? I love
| having surface level knowledge about a LOT of things. I
| certainly don't have time to have go deep on every topic out
| there. But if this is a topic I find I am interested in, the
| full talk is still available.
|
| Breadth and depth are both important, and well summarized
| talks are important for breadth, but not helpful at all for
| depth, and that's ok.
| zahlman wrote:
| > I, like many hackers, hated school because they just threw
| one-size-fits-all knowledge at you and here we are, paying
| for the privilege to have that in every facet of our lives.
|
| But now we get to browse the knowledge rather than having it
| thrown at us. That's more important than the quality or
| formatting of the content.
| itake wrote:
| > I don't get how we can all be so blind at what this is
| going to create.
|
| There is too much information. people are trying to optimize
| breadth over depth, but obviously there are costs to this.
| georgemandis wrote:
| For what it's worth, I completely agree with you, for all the
| reasons you're saying. With talks in particular I think it's
| seldom about the raw content and ideas presented and more about
| the ancillary ideas they provoke and inspire, like you're
| describing.
|
| There is just _so_ much content out there. And context is
| everything. If the person sharing it had led with some specific
| ideas or thoughts I might have taken the time to watch and
| looked for those ideas. But in the context it was received--a
| quick link with no additional context--I really just wanted the
| "gist" to know what I was even potentially responding to.
|
| In this case, for me, it was worth it. I can go back and decide
| if I want to watch it. Your comment has intrigued me so I very
| well might!
|
| ++ to "Slower is usually better for thinking"
| mutagen wrote:
| Not to discount slower speeds for thinking but I wonder if
| there is also value in dipping into a talk or a subject and
| then revisiting (re-watching) with the time to ponder on the
| thoughts a little more deeply.
| tass wrote:
| This is similar to strategies in "how to read a book"
| (Adler).
|
| By understanding the outline and themes of a book (or
| lecture, I suppose), it makes it easier to piece together
| thoughts as you delve deeper into the full content.
| conradev wrote:
| Was it the speed or the additional information vended by the
| audio and video? If someone is a compelling speaker, the same
| message will be way more effective in an audiovisual format.
| The audio has emphasis on certain parts of the content, for
| example, which is missing from the transcript or summary
| entirely. Video has gestural and facial cues, also often
| utilized to make a point.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| You'd love where I work. Everything is needlessly long
| bloviating power point meetings that could easily be ingested
| in a 5 minute email.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Slower is usually better for thinking._
|
| Yeah, I see people talking about listening to podcasts or
| audiobooks on 2x or 3x.
|
| Sometimes I set mine to 0.8x. I find you get time to absorb and
| think. Am I an outlier?
| LanceH wrote:
| Depends on what you're listening to. If it's a recap of
| something and you're just looking for the answer to "what
| happened?", that can be fine for 2x. If you're getting into
| the "why?" maybe slower is better. Or if there are a lot of
| players involved.
|
| I'm trying to imagine listening to War and Peace faster. On
| the one hand, there are a lot of threads and people to keep
| track of (I had a notepad of who is who). On the other hand,
| having the stories compressed in time might help remember
| what was going on with a character when finally returning to
| them.
|
| Listening to something like Dune quickly, someone might come
| out only thinking of the main political thrusts, and the
| action, without building that same world in their mind they
| would if read slower.
| b0a04gl wrote:
| it's still decoding every frame and matching phonemes either way,
| but speeding it up reduces how many seconds they bill you for. so
| you may hack their billing logic more than the model itself.
|
| also means the longer you talk, the more you pay even if the
| actual info density is the same. so if your voice has longer
| pauses or you speak slow, you maybe subsidizing inefficiency.
|
| makes me think maybe the next big compression is in delivery
| cadence. just auto-optimize voice tone and pacing before sending
| it to LLM. feed it synthetic fast speech with no emotion, just
| high density words. you lose human warmth but gain 40% cost
| savings
| timerol wrote:
| > Is It Accurate?
|
| > I don't know--I didn't watch it, lol. That was the whole point.
| And if that answer makes you uncomfortable, buckle-up for this
| future we're hurtling toward. Boy, howdy.
|
| This is a great bit of work, and the author accurately summarizes
| my discomfort
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| As if human-generated transcriptions of audio ever came with
| guarantees of accuracy?
|
| This kind of transformation has always come with flaws, and I
| think that will continue to be expected implicitly. Far more
| worrying is the public's trust in _interpretations_ and claims
| of _fact_ produced by gen AI services, or at least the popular
| idea that "AI" is more trustworthy/unbiased than humans,
| journalists, experts, etc.
| angst wrote:
| at least human-generated transcriptions have entities that we
| can hold responsible for...
| _kb wrote:
| That still holds true for gen-AI. Organisations that
| provide transcription services can't offload responsibility
| to a language model any more than they can to steno
| keyboard manufacturers.
|
| If you are the one feeding content to a model then you are
| that responsible entity.
| raincole wrote:
| A lot of people read newspaper.
|
| Newspaper is essentially just an inaccurate summary of what
| really happened. So I don't find this realization that
| uncomfortable.
| dmix wrote:
| That's why I find the idea of training breaking news on
| Reddit or Twitter funny, wild exaggerations and targeted spin
| is the sort of stuff that does best on those sites and
| generates the most comments, 50% of the output would be lies.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| Heads up, the token cost breakdown tables look white on white to
| me. I'm in dark mode on iOS using Brave.
| georgemandis wrote:
| Should be fixed now. Thank you!
| w-m wrote:
| With transcribing a talk by Andrej, you already picked the most
| challenging case possible, speed-wise. His natural talking speed
| is already >=1.5x that of a normal human. One of the people you
| absolutely have to set your YouTube speed back down to 1x when
| listening to follow what's going on.
|
| In the idea of making more of an OpenAI minute, don't send it any
| silence.
|
| E.g. ffmpeg -i video-audio.m4a \ -af
| "silenceremove=start_periods=1:start_duration=0:start_threshold=-
| 50dB:\
| stop_periods=-1:stop_duration=0.02:stop_threshold=-50dB,\
| apad=pad_dur=0.02" \ -c:a aac -b:a 128k
| output_minpause.m4a -y
|
| will cut the talk down from 39m31s to 31m34s, by replacing any
| silence (with a -50dB threshold) longer than 20ms by a 20ms
| pause. And to keep with the spirit of your post, I measured only
| that the input file got shorter, I didn't look at all at the
| quality of the transcription by feeding it the shorter version.
| georgemandis wrote:
| Oooh fun! I had a feeling there was more ffmpeg wizardry I
| could be leaning into here. I'll have to try this later--thanks
| for the idea!
| w-m wrote:
| In the meantime I realized that the apad part is nonsensical
| - it pads the end of the stream, not at each silence-removed
| cut. I wanted to get angry at o3 for proposing this, but then
| I had a look at the silenceremove= documentation myself:
| https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#silenceremove
|
| Good god. You couldn't make that any more convoluted and
| hard-to-grasp if you wanted to. You gotta love ffmpeg!
|
| I now _think_ this might be a good solution:
| ffmpeg -i video-audio.m4a \ -af "silenceremove
| =start_periods=1:stop_periods=-1:stop_duration=0.15:stop_thre
| shold=-40dB:detection=rms" \ -c:a aac -b:a
| 128k output.m4a -y
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| I love ffmpeg but the documentation is often close to
| incomprehensible.
| squigz wrote:
| Out of curiosity, how might you improve those docs? They
| seem fairly reasonable to me
| w-m wrote:
| The documentation reads like it was written by a
| programmer who documented the different parameters to
| their implementation of a specific algorithm. Now when
| you as the user come along and want to use silenceremove,
| you'll have to carefully read through this, and build
| your own mental model of that algorithm, and then you'll
| be able to set these parameters accordingly. That takes a
| lot of time and energy, in this case multiple read-
| throughs and I'd say > 5 minutes.
|
| Good documentation should do this work for you. It should
| explain somewhat atomic concepts to you, that you can
| immediately adapt, and compose. Where it already works is
| for the "detection" and "window" parameters, which are
| straightforward. But the actions of trimming in the
| start/middle/end, and how to configure how long the
| silence lasts before trimming, whether to ignore short
| bursts of noise, whether to skip every nth silence
| period, these are all ideas and concepts that get mushed
| together in 10 parameters which are called start/stop-
| duration/threshold/silence/mode/periods.
|
| If you want to apply this filter, it takes a long time to
| build mental models for these 10 parameters. You do have
| some example calls, which is great, but which doesn't
| help if you need to adjust any of these - then you
| probably need to understand them all.
|
| Some stuff I stumbled over when reading it:
|
| "To remove silence from the middle of a file, specify a
| stop_periods that is negative. This value is then treated
| as a positive value [...]" - what? Why is this parameter
| so heavily overloaded?
|
| "start_duration: Specify the amount of time that non-
| silence must be detected before it stops trimming audio"
| - parameter is named start_something, but it's about
| stopping? Why?
|
| "start_periods: [...] Normally, [...] start_periods will
| be 1 [...]. Default value is 0."
|
| "start_mode: Specify mode of detection of silence end at
| start": start_mode end at start?
|
| It's very clunky. Every parameter has multiple modes of
| operation. Why is it start and stop for beginning and
| end, and why is "do stuff in the middle" part of the end?
| Why is there no global mode?
|
| You could nitpick this stuff to death. In the end, naming
| things is famously one of the two hard problems in
| computer science (the others being cache invalidation and
| off-by-one errors). And writing good documentation is
| also very, very hard work. Just exposing the internals of
| the algorithm is often not great UX, because then every
| user has to learn how the thing works internally before
| they can start using it (hey, looking at you, git).
|
| So while it's easy to point out where these docs fail, it
| would be a lot of work to rewrite this documentation from
| the top down, explaining the concepts first. Or even
| rewriting the interface to make this more approachable,
| and the parameters less overloaded. But since it's hard
| work, and not sexy to programmers, it won't get done, and
| many people will come after, having to spend time on
| reading and re-reading this current mess.
| phito wrote:
| > naming things is famously one of the two hard problems
| in computer science
|
| Isn't ffmpeg made by a French person? As a francophone
| myself, I can tell you one of the biggest weakness of
| francophone programmers is naming things, even worse when
| it's in English. Maybe it's what's at play here.
| ada1981 wrote:
| Curious if this is helpful.
|
| https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/96ea8227-48c3-484d-b30
| b-6...
|
| I had Claude rewrite the documentation for silenceremove
| based on your feedback.
| zahlman wrote:
| > "start_mode: Specify mode of detection of silence end
| at start": start_mode end at start?
|
| In "start_mode", "start" means "initial", and "mode"
| means "method". But specifically, it's a method of
| figuring out where the silence ends.
|
| > In the end, naming things is famously one of the two
| hard problems in computer science
|
| It's also one of the hard problems in English.
| dylan604 wrote:
| if you did it in 2 passes, you could find the cut points
| using silence detect, use a bunch of -ss/-t/-i based on
| those segments, apad each segment with a -filter_complex
| chain the ends in concating. it would be a wonderfully
| gnarly command for very little benefit. but it could be
| done
| pragmatic wrote:
| No not really? The talk where he babbles about OSes and
| everyone is somehow impressed?
| behnamoh wrote:
| > His natural talking speed is already >=1.5x that of a normal
| human. One of the people you absolutely have to set your
| YouTube speed back down to 1x when listening to follow what's
| going on.
|
| I wonder if there's a way to automatically detect how "fast" a
| person talks in an audio file. I know it's subjective and
| different people talk at different paces in an audio, but it'd
| be cool to kinda know when OP's trick fails (they mention x4
| ruined the output; maybe for karpathy that would happen at x2).
| echelon wrote:
| > I wonder if there's a way to automatically detect how
| "fast" a person talks in an audio file.
|
| Stupid heuristic: take a segment of video, transcribe text,
| count number of words per utterance duration. If you need
| speaker diarization, handle speaker utterance durations
| independently. You can further slice, such as syllable count,
| etc.
| nand4011 wrote:
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594
|
| Apparently human language conveys information at around 39
| bits/s. You could use a similar technique as that paper to
| determine the information rate of a speaker and then
| correct it to 39 bits/s by changing the speed of the video.
| varispeed wrote:
| It's a shame platforms don't generally support speeds greater
| than 2x. One of my "superpowers" or a curse is that I cannot
| stand normal speaking pace. When I watch lectures, I always
| go for maximum speed and that still is too slow for me. I
| wish platforms have included 4x but done properly (with
| minimal artefacts).
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Robot in a human body identified :D.
| mrmuagi wrote:
| All audiobooks are like this for me. I tried it for
| lectures but if I'm taking handwritten notes, I can't keep
| up my writing.
|
| I wonder if there is negative side effects of this though,
| do you notice when interacting with people who speak slower
| require a greater deal of patience?
| colechristensen wrote:
| No but a little. I struggle with people who repeat every
| point of what they're saying to you several times or when
| you say "you told me exactly this the last time we spoke"
| they cannot be stopped from retelling the whole thing
| verbatim. Usually in those situations though there's some
| potential cognitive issues so you can only be
| understanding.
| hamburglar wrote:
| I once attended a live talk by Leslie Lamport and as he
| talked, I had the overwhelming feeling that something was
| wrong, and was thinking "did he have a stroke or
| something?" but then I realized I had just always watched
| his lectures online and had become accustomed to
| listening to him at 2x.
| userbinator wrote:
| _I wonder if there is negative side effects of this
| though, do you notice when interacting with people who
| speak slower require a greater deal of patience?_
|
| You are basically training your brain to work faster, and
| I suspect that causes some changes in the structure of
| your memory; if someone speaks too slowly, I'll be more
| likely to forget what they said earlier, compared to if
| they quickly gave me the entire sentence.
| dpcx wrote:
| https://github.com/codebicycle/videospeed has been a
| wonderful addition for me.
| narratives1 wrote:
| I use a Chrome extension that lets you take any video
| player (including embedded) to 10x speed. Turn most things
| to 3-4x. It works on ads too
| munch117 wrote:
| I use a bookmarklet:
|
| javascript:void%20function(){document.querySelector(%22vi
| deo,audio%22).playbackRate=parseFloat(prompt(%22Set%20the
| %20playback rate%22))}();
| cookingrobot wrote:
| There are fonts designed to be legibly at really small
| size. I wonder if there are voices that are especially
| understandable at extreme speeds.
|
| Could use an "auctioneer" voice to playback text at 10x
| speed.
| bbatha wrote:
| I'm also a fast listener. I find audio quality is the
| main differentiator in my ability to listen quickly or
| not. A podcast recorded at high quality I can listen to
| at 3-4x (with silence trimmed) comfortably, the second
| someone calls in from their phone I'm getting every 4th
| word and often need to go down to 2x or less. Mumbly
| accents are also a driver of quality but not as much,
| then again I rarely have trouble understanding difficult
| accents IRL and almost never use subtitles on TV
| shows/youtube to better understand the speaker. Your
| mileage may vary.
|
| I understand 4-6x speakers fairly well but don't enjoy
| listening at that pace. If I lose focus for a couple of
| seconds I effectively miss a paragraph of context and my
| brain can't fill in the missing details.
| seabass wrote:
| I made a super simplistic chrome extension for this.
| Doesn't work on all websites, but YouTube and most online
| video courses are covered.
|
| https://github.com/sebastiansandqvist/video-speed-extension
| JadeNB wrote:
| Can't you use VLC to watch almost anything streamable, and
| then play at your desired speed?
| ars wrote:
| I use this extension: https://mybrowseraddon.com/video-
| speed-control.html
| eitally wrote:
| Recently, YT started supporting 4x playback for Premium
| subscribers, but only in the mobile app, not on the web.
| btown wrote:
| Even a last-decade transcription model could be used to
| detect a rough number of syllables per unit time, and the
| accuracy of that model could be used to guide speed-up and
| dead-time detection before sending to a more expensive model.
| As with all things, it's a question of whether the cost
| savings justify the engineering work.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > I wonder if there's a way to automatically detect how
| "fast" a person talks in an audio file
|
| Transcribe it locally using whisper and output tokens/sec?
| maxall4 wrote:
| Just count syllables per second by doing an FFT plus some
| basic analysis.
| tucnak wrote:
| > FFT plus some basic analysis
|
| Yeah, totally easier than `len(transcribe(a))/len(a)`
| mrstone wrote:
| > I wonder if there's a way to automatically detect how
| "fast" a person talks in an audio file.
|
| Hilbert transform and FFT to get phoneme rate would work.
| WalterSear wrote:
| Better: just make everyone in the video speak at my
| comfortable speed.
| dTal wrote:
| Compress it using a VBR speech codec and measure the
| compression ratio?
| brunoborges wrote:
| The interesting thing here is that OpenAI likely has a layer
| that trims down videos exactly how you suggest, so they can
| still charge by the full length while costing less for them to
| actually process the content.
| cbsmith wrote:
| That's an amusing perspective. I really struggle with watching
| any video at double speed, but I've never had trouble listening
| to any of his talks at 1x. To me, he seems to speak at a
| perfectly reasonable pace.
| swyx wrote:
| > I didn't look at all at the quality of the transcription by
| feeding it the shorter version.
|
| guys how hard is it to toss both versions into like diffchecker
| or something haha youre just comparing text
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Why use diffchecker when there's a perfectly good LLM you
| could ask right there? lol
| serf wrote:
| because a lot of LLMs will just eat tokens to call a
| diffchecker.
|
| really it becomes a question of whether or not the friction
| of invoking the command or the cost of tokens is greater.
|
| as I get older and more rsi'd the tokens seem cheaper.
| trashchomper wrote:
| Assuming sarcasm but if not, because deterministic vs.
| nondeterministic output?
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Not sarcasm, just a little joke. I thought the emote at
| the end would prevent it from being taken seriously. . .
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Make it semi deterministic with structured/constrained
| generation!
| QuantumGood wrote:
| I wish there was a 2.25x YouTube option for "normal" humans. I
| already use every shortcut, and listen at 2x 90% of the time.
| But Andrej I can't take faster than 1.25x
| zamadatix wrote:
| YouTube ran an experiment with up to 4x playback on mobile
| (???) but it went away in February. I get a lot of the
| experiments they do being experiments but why just allowing
| the slider to go farther is such a back and forth hoopla is
| beyond me. It's one of the oft touted features of 3rd party
| apps and extensions with nearly 0 UI impact to those who
| don't want to use it (just don't slide the slider past 2x if
| you don't want past 2x).
|
| https://www.theverge.com/news/603581/youtube-premium-
| experim...
| K2L8M11N2 wrote:
| As a premium subscriber I currently have 4x available on
| Android and they recently (in the last month) added it to
| web too
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Probably, because they are "A/B testing" things, that do
| not really show much effect or depend on more
| circumstances, than they care to eliminate and then
| overinterpret the results. Like almost all corporate A/B
| testing.
| ars wrote:
| Install this: https://mybrowseraddon.com/video-speed-
| control.html
|
| I listen to a lot of videos on 3 or even 4x.
| david_allison wrote:
| I have up to 4x (in steps of 0.05) with YouTube Premium on
| Android
| zahlman wrote:
| Meanwhile, I've found that just reading the transcript is
| often good enough.
| nickjj wrote:
| Andrej's talk seemed normal to listen at 2x but I've also
| listened to everything at 2x for a long time.
|
| Unfortunately a byproduct of listening to everything at 2x is
| I've had a number of folks say they have to watch my videos at
| 0.75x but even when I play back my own videos it feels
| painfully slow unless it's 2x.
|
| For reference I've always found John Carmack's pacing perfect /
| natural and watchable at 2x too.
|
| A recent video of mine is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL-
| qft1ykek. It was posted on HN by someone else the other day so
| I'm not trying to do any self promotion here, it's just an
| example of a recent video I put up and am generally curious if
| anyone finds that too fast or it's normal. It's a regular
| unscripted video where I have a rough idea of what I want to
| cover and then turn on the mic, start recording and let it pan
| out organically. If I had to guess I'd say the last ~250-300
| videos were recorded this way.
| noahjk wrote:
| To me you talk at what I would consider "1.2x" of podcast
| speed (which to me is a decent average measure of spoken word
| speed - I usually do 1.5x on all podcasts). You're definitely
| still in the normal distribution for tech YouTubers, in my
| experience - in fact it feels like a lot of tech YouTube
| talks like they've had a bit too much adderall, but you don't
| come off that way. Naturally people may choose to slow down
| tutorials, because the person giving the tutorial can never
| truly understand what someone learning would or wouldn't
| understand. So overall I think your speed is totally fine!
| Also, very timely video, I was interested in the exact topic,
| so I'm happy I found this.
| eru wrote:
| > "[I]n fact it feels like a lot of tech YouTube talks like
| they've had a bit too much adderall, [...]"
|
| Funnily enough, if you actually have ADHD, then stimulants
| like adderall or even nicotine, will calm you down.
|
| > Naturally people may choose to slow down tutorials, [...]
|
| For me it also depends on what mood I'm in and whether I'm
| doing anything else at the same time. If I'm fully
| concentrating on a video, 2x is often fine. If I'm doing
| some physical task at the same time, I need it slower than
| that.
|
| If I'm doing a mental task at the same, I can forget about
| getting anything out of the video. At least, if the mental
| task involves any words. So eg I could probably still
| follow along a technical discussion at roughly 1x speed
| while playing Tetris, but not while coding.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Driving is a hard 1.0 for me. But otherwise 2.0 is good.
| SavioMak wrote:
| Yeah, you sound around 1.25-1.5x than the average videos I
| watch
| viraptor wrote:
| > Andrej's talk seemed normal to listen at 2x but I've also
| listened to everything at 2x for a long time.
|
| We get used to higher speeds when we consume a lot of content
| that way. Have you heard the systems used by experienced
| blind people? I cannot even understand the words in them, but
| months of training would probably fix that.
| userbinator wrote:
| You can achieve a similar, less permanent effect by closing
| your eyes; I often do it when I'm on a call and the person
| on the other end is extremely difficult to understand.
| userbinator wrote:
| _but even when I play back my own videos it feels painfully
| slow unless it 's 2x._
|
| Watching your video at 1x still feels too slow, and it's just
| right for me at 2x speed (that's approximately how fast I
| normally talk if others don't tell me to slow down), although
| my usual YouTube watching speed is closer to 2.5-3x. That is
| to say, you're still faster than a lot of others.
|
| I think it just takes practice --- I started at around 1.25x
| for videos, and slowly moved up from there. As you have
| noticed, once you've consumed enough sped-up content, your
| own speaking speed will also naturally increase.
| fuzztester wrote:
| James Goodnight of SAS Institute:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goodnight
|
| I have watched one or two videos of his, and he spoke slowly,
| compared to the average person. I liked that. It sounded
| good.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Your video sounded a tad fast at 2x and pretty fine at 1.5.
|
| Now I think speed adjustment come less from the natural
| speaking pace of the person than the subject matter.
|
| I'm thinking of a channel like Accented Cinema
| (https://youtu.be/hfruMPONaYg), with a slowish talking pace,
| but as there's all the visual part going on at all times, it
| actually doesn't feel slow to my ear.
|
| I felt the same for videos explaining concept I have no
| familiarity with, so I see as how fast the brain can process
| the info, less than the talking speed per se.
| retsibsi wrote:
| Your speaking speed is noticeably faster than usual, but I
| think it's good for this kind of video. When the content is
| really dense and every word is chosen for maximum information
| value, a slower speed would be good, but for relatively
| natural speech with a normal amount of redundancy I think
| it's fine to go at this speed.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| Your actual speed of talking sounds a little faster than
| average but not notably so.
|
| But it _feels_ (very subjectively) faster to me than usual
| because you don 't really seem to take any pauses. It's like
| the whole video is a single run-on sentence that I keep
| buffering, but I never get a chance to process it and flush
| the buffer.
| fortran77 wrote:
| I always listen to YouTube and podcasts at 1.5. And when I
| meet a YouTuber/podcaster IRL, I'm always annoyed at how slow
| they speak.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| This btw is also why spreading (speed reading) happens in
| American competitive debate. This gets ridiculed online but
| it's exactly why it happens.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)
| hooverd wrote:
| They should put an upper WPM on competitive debate, like F1
| does with certain car parts.
| jwrallie wrote:
| From my own experience with whisper.cpp, normalizing the audio
| and removing silence not only shortens the process time
| significantly, but also increases a lot the quality of the
| transcription, as silence can mean hallucinations. You can do
| that graphically with Audacity too, if you do not want to deal
| with the command line. You also do not need any special
| hardware to run whisper.cpp, with the small model literally any
| computer should be able to do it if you can wait a bit (less
| than the audio length).
|
| One half interesting / half depressing observation I made is
| that at my workplace any meeting recording I tried to
| transcribe in this way had its length reduced to almost 2/3
| when cutting off the silence. Makes you think about the
| efficiency (or lack of it) of holding long(ish) meetings.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| 1/3 of the meeting is silence? That's a good thing. It's
| allowing people time to think over what they're hearing,
| there are pauses to allow people to contribute or
| participate. What do you think a better percentage of silent
| time would be?
| jwrallie wrote:
| Good point, somehow if I think of a 30 minutes meeting, 10
| minutes of silence sounds great, but seeing a 1 hour block
| disappear from a 3 hour recording makes me want to use that
| "free" hour to do something else.
|
| Well, I don't think silence is not the real problem with a
| 3 hour meeting!
| literalAardvark wrote:
| If people could speak continuously for an entire meeting
| then that meeting would be better off as an email.
| Meetings are for bouncing half formed ideas around and
| coagulating that into something greater.
|
| There MUST be time to think
| sudhirj wrote:
| If a human meeting had lot of silence (assuming it's between
| words and not before / after), I would consider it a very
| efficient meeting where there was just enough information
| exchanged with adequate absorption, processing and response
| time.
| dogprez wrote:
| Others pointed out the value of silence, but I just wanted to
| say it saddens me when humanity is misclassified as
| inefficiency. The other day Sam Altman made a jest about how
| much energy is wasted by people saying "thanks" to chatgpt.
| The corollary is how much human energy is wasted on humans
| saying thanks to each other. When making a judgement about
| inefficiency one is making a judgement on what is valuable, a
| very biased judgement that isn't necessarily aligned with
| what makes us thrive. =) (<-- a wasteful smiley)
| kristianbrigman wrote:
| I'll remember that you told me thanks. Will chatgpt?
| (Honestly curious... it's possible)
| Salgat wrote:
| I say thanks for my own well-being too.
| rz2k wrote:
| I get the impression that it sets a tone that encourages
| creative, more open ended responses.
|
| I think this is the reverse of confrontation with the
| LLM. Typically if you get a really dumb response, it is
| better to hang up the conversation and completely start
| over than it is to tell the LLM why it is wrong. Once you
| start arguing, they start getting stupider and respond
| with even faultier logic as they try to appease you.
|
| I suppose it makes sense if the training involves
| alternate models of discourse resembling two educated
| people in a forum with shared intellectual curiosity and
| a common goal, or two people having a ridiculous internet
| argument.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| Well, humans saying thanks to eachother isn't wasted
| energy. It has a real affect on our relationships.
|
| People say thank you to AI because they are portrayed as
| human-like chat bots, but in reality it has almost no
| effect on their effectiveness to respond to our queries.
|
| Saying thank you to ChatGPT is no less wasteful than saying
| thank you to Windows for opening the calculator.
|
| I don't think anyone is trying to draw any parallels
| between that inefficiency and real humans saying thank you?
| mulmen wrote:
| Humans _are_ inefficient. The mistake is making a moral
| judgement about that.
| vayup wrote:
| Gemini charges by tokens rather than minutes. I used VAD to
| trim silence hoping token count will go down. I noticed the
| token count wasn't much different (Eg: 30 seconds of background
| noise had the same count as 2s of background noise). Either
| Gemini API trims silence under the hood, or the nature of
| tokenization is dependent on speech content rather than the
| length. Not sure which.
|
| In either case, I bet OpenAI is doing the same optimization
| under the hood and keeping the savings for themselves.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| > to set your YouTube speed back down to 1x
|
| Is it common for people to watch Youtube sped up?
|
| I've heard of people doing this for podcasts and audiobooks and
| never understood it all that much there. Just feels like
| 'skimming' a real book instead of actually reading it.
| Feathercrown wrote:
| Some people talk slower than your natural listening speed.
| It's less like skimming and more like if some books used 36pt
| font and you normalized the size back down to a comfortable
| information-dense size.
| Eezee wrote:
| That's completely different. Imagine you are reading a book
| and the words only get revealed to you at 1 word a second.
| You would get annoyed if your natural reading speed was
| higher than that.
|
| Same with a video. A lot of people speak considerably slower
| than you could process the information they are conveying, so
| you speed it up. You still get the same content and are not
| skipping parts as you would when skimming a book.
| keithxm23 wrote:
| Often, I'll come across speakers who just speak slowly and
| listening at 1.5x or 2x barely feels sped-up.
|
| Additionally, the brain tends to adjust to a faster talking
| speed very quickly. If I'm watching an average-paced person
| talk and speed them up by 2x, the first couple minutes of
| listening might be difficult and will require more intent-
| listening. However, the brain starts processing it as the new
| normal and it does not feel sped-up anymore. To the extent
| that if I go back to 1x, it feels like the speaker is way too
| slow.
| 83 wrote:
| >>Just feels like 'skimming' a real book instead of actually
| reading it.
|
| That's the goal for me lately. I primarily use Youtube for
| technical assistance (where are the screws to adjust this
| carburetor?, how do I remove this brake hub?, etc). There
| used to be short 1 to 2m videos on this kind of stuff but
| nowadays I have to suffer through a 10-15 minute video with
| multiple ad breaks.
|
| So now I always watch youtube at 2x speed while rapidly
| jumping the slider forward to find relevant portions.
| babuloseo wrote:
| I use the youtube trick, will share it here, but upload to
| youtube and use their built in transcription service to translate
| to text for you, and than use gemini pro 2.5 to rebuild the
| transcript.
|
| ffmpeg \ -f lavfi \ -i color=c=black:s=1920x1080:r=5 \ -i
| file_you_want_transcripted.wav \ -c:v libx264 \ -preset medium \
| -tune stillimage \ -crf 28 \ -c:a aac \ -b:a 192k \ -pix_fmt
| yuv420p \ -shortest \
| file_you_upload_to_youtube_for_free_transcripts.mp4
|
| This works VERY well for my needs.
| KTibow wrote:
| This is really interesting, although the cheapest route is still
| to use an alternative audio-compatible LLM (Gemini 2.0 Flash
| Lite, Phi 4 Multimodal) or an alternative host for Whisper
| (Deepinfra, Fal).
| fallinditch wrote:
| When extracting transcripts from YouTube videos, can anyone give
| advice on the best (cost effective, quick, accurate) way to do
| this?
|
| I'm confused because I read in various places that the YouTube
| API doesn't provide access to transcripts ... so how do all these
| YouTube transcript extractor services do it?
|
| I want to build my own YouTube summarizer app. Any advice and
| info on this topic greatly appreciated!
| vjerancrnjak wrote:
| If YouTube placed autogenerated captions you can download them
| free of charge with yt-dlp.
| rob wrote:
| There's a tool that uses YouTube's unofficial APIs to get them
| if they're available:
|
| https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api
|
| For our internal tool that transcribes local city council
| meetings on YouTube (often 1-3 hours long), we found that these
| automatic ones were never available though.
|
| (Our tool usually 'processes' the videos within ~5-30 mins of
| being uploaded, so that's also why none are probably available
| 'officially' yet.)
|
| So we use yt-dlp to download the highest quality audio and then
| process them with whisper via Groq, which is way cheaper
| (~$0.02-0.04/hr with Groq compared to $0.36/hr via OpenAI's
| API.) Sometimes groq errors out so there's built-in support for
| Replicate and Deepgram as well.
|
| We run yt-dlp on our remote Linode server and I have a Python
| script I created that will automatically login to YouTube with
| a "clean" account and extract the proper cookies.txt file, and
| we also generate a 'po token' using another tool:
|
| https://github.com/iv-org/youtube-trusted-session-generator
|
| Both cookies.txt and the "po token" get passed to yt-dlp when
| running on the Linode server and I haven't had to re-generate
| anything in over a month. Runs smoothly every day.
|
| (Note that I don't use cookies/po_token when running locally at
| home, it usually works fine there.)
| fallinditch wrote:
| Very useful, thanks. So does this mean that every month or so
| you have to create a new 'clean' YouTube account and use that
| to create new po_token/cookies?
|
| It's frustrating to have to jump through all these hoops just
| to extract transcripts when the YouTube Data API already
| gives reasonable limits to free API calls ... would be nice
| if they allowed transcripts too.
|
| Do you think the various YouTube transcript extractor
| services all follow a similar method as yours?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| You can use yt-dlp to get the transcripts. For instance, to
| grab just the transcript of a video: ./yt-dlp
| --skip-download --write-sub --write-auto-sub --sub-lang en
| --sub-format json3 <youtube video URL>
|
| You can also feed the same command a playlist or channel URL
| and it'll run through and grab all the transcripts for each
| video in the playlist or channel.
| fallinditch wrote:
| That's cool, thanks for the info. But do you also have to use
| a rotating proxy to prevent YouTube from blocking your IP
| address?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Last time I ran this at scale was a couple of months ago,
| so my information is no doubt out of date, but in my
| experience, YouTube seems less concerned about this than
| they are when you're grabbing lots of videos.
|
| But that was a few months ago, so for all I know they've
| tightened down more hatches since then.
| topaz0 wrote:
| I have a way that is (all but) free -- just watch the video if
| you care about it, or decide not to if you don't, and move on
| with your life.
| Tepix wrote:
| Why would you give up your privacy by sending what interests you
| to OpenAI when whisper doesn't need that much computer in the
| first place?
|
| With faster-whisper (int8, batch=8) you can transcripe 13 minutes
| of audio in 51 seconds _on CPU_.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I came here to ask the same question. This is a well-solved
| problem, red queen racing it seems utterly pointless, a symptom
| of reflexive adversarialism.
| poly2it wrote:
| > symptom of reflexive adversarialism
|
| Is there a definition for this expression? I don't catch you.
|
| > ... using corporate technology for the solved problem is a
| symptom of self-directed skepticism by the user against the
| corporate institutions ...
|
| Eh?
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| I am a blue collar electrician. Not a coder (but definitely
| geeky).
|
| Whisper works quite well on Apple Silicon with simple drag/drop
| install (i.e. no terminal commands). Program is free; you can
| get an M4 mini for ~$550; don't see how an online platform can
| even compete with this, except for one-off customers (i.e. not
| great repeat customers).
|
| We used it to transcribe _ddaayyss_ of audio microcassettes
| which my mother had made during her lifetime. Whisper.app even
| transcribed a few hours that are difficult to comprehend as a
| human listener. It is _VERY_ fast.
|
| I've used the text to search for timestamps worth listening to,
| skipping most dead-space (e.g. she made most while driving, in
| a stream of not-always-focused consciousness).
| pimlottc wrote:
| Appreciated the concise summary + code snippet upfront, followed
| by more detail and background for those interested. More articles
| should be written this way!
| rob wrote:
| For anybody trying to do this in bulk, instead of using OpenAI's
| whisper via their API, you can also use Groq [0] which is much
| cheaper:
|
| [0] https://groq.com/pricing/
|
| Groq is ~$0.02/hr with distil-large-v3, or ~$0.04/hr with
| whisper-large-v3-turbo. I believe OpenAI comes out to like
| ~$0.36/hr.
|
| We do this internally with our tool that automatically
| transcribes local government council meetings right when they get
| uploaded to YouTube. It uses Groq by default, but I also added
| support for Replicate and Deepgram as backups because sometimes
| Groq errors out.
| georgemandis wrote:
| Interesting! At $0.02 to $0.04 an hour I don't suspect you've
| been hunting for optimizations, but I wonder if this "speed up
| the audio" trick would save you even more.
|
| > We do this internally with our tool that automatically
| transcribes local government council meetings right when they
| get uploaded to YouTube
|
| Doesn't YouTube do this for you automatically these days within
| a day or so?
| rob wrote:
| > Doesn't YouTube do this for you automatically these days
| within a day or so?
|
| Oh yeah, we do a check first and use youtube-transcript-api
| if there's an automatic one available:
|
| https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api
|
| The tool usually detects them within like ~5 mins of being
| uploaded though, so usually none are available yet. Then
| it'll send the summaries to our internal Slack channel for
| our editors, in case there's anything interesting to 'follow
| up on' from the meeting.
|
| Probably would be a good idea to add a delay to it and wait
| for the automatic ones though :)
| jerjerjer wrote:
| > I wonder if this "speed up the audio" trick would save you
| even more.
|
| At this point you'll need to at least check how much running
| ffmpeg costs. Probably less than $0.01 per hour of audio
| (approximate savings) but still.
| ks2048 wrote:
| > Doesn't YouTube do this for you automatically these days
| within a day or so?
|
| Last time I checked, I think the Google auto-captions were
| noticeably worse quality than whisper, but maybe that has
| changed.
| colechristensen wrote:
| If you have a recent macbook you can run the same whisper model
| locally for free. People are really sleeping on how cheap the
| compute you own hardware for already is.
| rob wrote:
| I don't. I have a MacBook Pro from 2019 with an Intel chip
| and 16 GB of memory. Pretty sure when I tried the large
| whisper model it took like 30 minutes to an hour to do
| something that took hardly any time via Groq. It's been a
| while though so maybe my times are off.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Ah, no, Apple silicon Mac required with a decent amount of
| memory. But this kind of machine has been very common (a
| mid to high range recent macbook) at all of my employers
| for a long time.
| fragmede wrote:
| It's been roughly six years since that MacBook was top of
| the line, so your times are definitely off.
| likium wrote:
| What tool do you use?
| pzo wrote:
| there is also cloudflare workers ai where you can have whisper-
| large-v3-turbo for around $0.03 per hour:
|
| https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers-ai/models/whisper-...
| abidlabs wrote:
| You could use Hugging Face's Inference API (which supports all
| of these API providers) directly making it easier to switch
| between them, e.g. look at the panel on the right on:
| https://huggingface.co/openai/whisper-large-v3
| BrunoJo wrote:
| Let me know if you are interested in a more reliable
| transcription API. I'm building Lemonfox.ai and we've optimized
| our transcription API to be highly available and very fast for
| large files. Happy to give you a discount (email: bruno at
| lemonfox.ai)
| stogot wrote:
| Love this idea but the accuracy section is lacking. Couldnt you
| do a simple diff of the outputs and see how many differences
| there are? .5% or 5%?
| georgemandis wrote:
| Yeah, I'd like to do a more formal analysis of the outputs if I
| can carve out the time.
|
| I don't think a simple diff is the way to go, at least for what
| I'm interested in. What I care about more is the overall
| accuracy of the summary--not the word-for-word transcription.
|
| The test I want to setup is using LLMs to evaluate the
| summarized output and see if the primary themes/topics persist.
| That's more interesting and useful to me for this exercise.
| tmaly wrote:
| The whisper model weights are free. You could save even more by
| just using them locally.
| pzo wrote:
| but this is still great trick if you want to reduce latency or
| inference speed even with local models e.g. in realtime chatbot
| 55555 wrote:
| This seems like a good place for me to complain about the fact
| that the automatically generated subtitle files Youtube creates
| are horribly malformed. Every sentence is repeated twice. In many
| subtitle files, the subtitle timestamp ranges overlap one another
| while also repeating every sentence twice in two different
| ranges. It's absolutely bizarre and has been like this for years
| or possibly forever. Here's an example - I apologize that it's
| not in English. I don't know if this issue affects English.
| https://pastebin.com/raw/LTBps80F
| xenator wrote:
| Seems like Thai. Thai translation and recognition is like 10
| years ago comparing to other languages I'm dealing with in my
| everyday life. Good news tho is the same level was for Russian
| years ago, and now it is near perfect.
| 55555 wrote:
| Well the weird thing is honestly their speech to text
| recognizes 97% of words correctly. The subtitle content is
| pretty perfect. It's just the formatting that's awful.
| amelius wrote:
| Solution: charge by number of characters generated.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| I built a Chrome extension with one feature that transcribes
| audio to text in the browser using huggingface/transformers.js
| running the OpenAI Whisper model with WebGPU. It works perfect!
| Here is a list of examples of all the things you can do in the
| browser with webgpu for free. [0]
|
| The last thing in the world I want to do is listen or watch
| presidential social media posts, but, on the other hand,
| sometimes enormously stupid things are said which move the SP500
| up or down $60 in a session. So this feature queries for new
| posts every minute, does ORC image to text and transcribe video
| audio to text locally, sends the post with text for analysis, all
| in the background inside a Chrome extension before notify me of
| anything economically significant.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/huggingface/transformers.js/tree/main/exa...
|
| [1] https://github.com/adam-s/doomberg-terminal
| kgc wrote:
| Impressive
| karpathy wrote:
| Omg long post. TLDR from an LLM for anyone interested
|
| Speed your audio up 2-3x with ffmpeg before sending it to
| OpenAI's gpt-4o-transcribe: the shorter file uses fewer input-
| tokens, cuts costs by roughly a third, and processes faster with
| little quality loss (4x is too fast). A sample yt-dlp - ffmpeg -
| curl script shows the workflow.
|
| ;)
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| This is the sort of content I want to see in Tweets and
| LinkedIn posts.
|
| I have been thinking for a while how do you make good use of
| the short space in those places.
|
| LLM did well here.
| georgemandis wrote:
| Hahaha. Okay, okay... I will watch it now ;)
|
| (Thanks for your good sense of humor)
| karpathy wrote:
| I like that your post deliberately gets to the point first
| and then (optionally) expands later, I think it's a good and
| generally underutilized format. I often advise people to
| structure their emails in the same way, e.g. first just
| cutting to the chase with the specific ask, then giving more
| context optionally below.
|
| It's not my intention to bloat information or delivery but I
| also don't super know how to follow this format especially in
| this kind of talk. Because it's not so much about relaying
| specific information (like your final script here), but more
| as a collection of prompts back to the audience as things to
| think about.
|
| My companion tweet to this video on X had a brief
| TLDR/Summary included where I tried, but I didn't super think
| it was very reflective of the talk, it was more about topics
| covered.
|
| Anyway, I am overall a big fan of doing more compute at the
| "creation time" to compress other people's time during
| "consumption time" and I think it's the respectful and kind
| thing to do.
| georgemandis wrote:
| I watched your talk. There are so many more interesting
| ideas in there that resonated with me that the summary
| (unsurprisingly) skipped over. I'm glad I watched it!
|
| LLMs as the operating system, the way you interface with
| vibe-coding (smaller chunks) and the idea that maybe we
| haven't found the "GUI for AI" yet are all things I've
| pondered and discussed with people. You articulated them
| well.
|
| I think some formats, like a talk, don't lend themselves
| easily to meaningful summaries. It's about giving the
| audience things to think about, to your point. It's the sum
| of storytelling that's more than the whole and why we still
| do it.
|
| My post is, at the end of the day, really more about a neat
| trick to optimize transcriptions. This particular video
| might be a great example of why you may not always want to
| do that :)
|
| Anyway, thanks for the time and thanks for the talk!
| mh- wrote:
| _> I often advise people to structure their emails [..]_
|
| I frequently do the same, and eventually someone sent me
| this HBR article summarizing the concept nicely as "bottom
| line up front". It's a good primer for those interested.
|
| https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-
| pre...
| lordspace wrote:
| that's a really good summary :)
| xg15 wrote:
| That's really cool! Also, isn't this effectively the same as
| supplying audio with a sampling rate of 8kHz instead of the 16kHz
| that the model is supposed to work with?
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Someone should try transcribing Eminem's Rap god with this trick.
| alok-g wrote:
| >> by jumping straight to the point ...
|
| Love this! I wish more authors follow this approach. So many
| articles keep going all over the place before 'the point'
| appears.
|
| If trying, perhaps some 50% of the authors may realize that they
| don't _have_ a point.
| pknerd wrote:
| I guess it'd work even if you make it 2.5 or evebn 3x.
| donkey_brains wrote:
| Hmm...doesn't this technique effectively make the minute longer,
| not shorter? Because you can pack more speech into a minute of
| recording? Seems like making a minute shorter would be
| counterproductive.
| StochasticLi wrote:
| No. You're paying for a minute of audio, which will be more
| packed with speech, not for how long it's being computed.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Make the minutes longer, you mean.
| pbbakkum wrote:
| This is great, thank you for sharing. I work on these APIs at
| OpenAI, it's a surprise to me that it still works reasonably well
| at 2/3x speed, but on the other hand for phone channels we get
| 8khz audio that is upsampled to 24khz for the model and it still
| works well. Note there's probably a measurable decrease in
| transcription accuracy that worsens as you deviate from 1x speed.
| Also we really need to support bigger/longer file uploads :)
| nerder92 wrote:
| Quick Feedback: Would it be cool to research this internally
| and maybe find a sweet spot in speed multiplier where the loss
| is minimal. This pre-processing is quite cheap and could bring
| down the API price eventually.
| georgemandis wrote:
| I kind of want to take a more proper poke at this but focus
| more one summarization accuracy over word-for-word accuracy,
| though I see the value in both.
|
| I'm actually curious, if I run transcriptions back-to-back-to-
| back on the exact same audio, how much variance should I
| expect?
|
| Maybe I'll try three approaches:
|
| - A straight diff comparison (I know a lot of people are
| calling for this, but I really think this is less useful than
| it sounds)
|
| - A "variance within the modal" test running it multiple times
| against the same audio, tracking how much it varies between
| runs
|
| - An LLM analysis assessing if the primary points from a talk
| were captured and summarized at 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x runs (I think
| this is far more useful and interesting)
| celltalk wrote:
| With this logic, you should also be able to trim the parts that
| doesn't have words. Just add a cut-off for db, and trim the video
| before transcription.
|
| Possibly another 10-20% gain?
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| Transcripts get much more valuable when one diarizes the audio
| beforehand to determine which speaker said what.
|
| I use this free tool to extract those and dump the transcripts
| into a LLM with basic prompts: https://contentflow.megalabs.co
| mt_ wrote:
| You can just dump the youtube link video in Google AI studio and
| ask it to transcribe the video with speaker labels and even ask
| it it to add useful visual clues, because the model is multimodal
| for video too.
| MaxDPS wrote:
| Can I ask what you mean by "useful visual clues"?
| mt_ wrote:
| What is the speaker showcasing in its slides, what is it's
| body language and so on.
| cprayingmantis wrote:
| I noticed something similar with images as inputs to Claude, you
| can scale down the images and still get good outputs. There is an
| accuracy drop off at a certain point but the token savings are
| worth doing a little tuning there.
| georgemandis wrote:
| Definitely in the same spirit!
|
| Clearly the next thing we need to test is removing all the
| vowels from words, or something like that :)
| meerab wrote:
| Interesting approach to transcript generation!
|
| I'm implementing a similar workflow for VideoToBe.com
|
| My Current Pipeline:
|
| Media Extraction - yt-dlp for reliable video/audio downloads
| Local Transcription - OpenAI Whisper running on my own hardware
| (no API costs) Storage & UI - Transcripts stored in S3 with a
| custom web interface for viewing
|
| Y Combinator playlist
| https://videotobe.com/play/playlist/ycombinator
|
| and Andrej's talk is
| https://videotobe.com/play/youtube/LCEmiRjPEtQ
|
| After reading your blog post, I will be testing effect on
| speeding audio for locally-hosted Whisper models. Running Whisper
| locally eliminates the ongoing cost concerns since my
| infrastructure is already a sunk cost. Speeding audio could be an
| interesting performance enhancement to explore!
| fuzztester wrote:
| Stop being slaves of extorters of any kind, and just leave.
|
| there is tons of this happening everywhere, and we need to fight
| this, and boycott it.
| pottertheotter wrote:
| You can just ask Gemini to summarize it for you. It's free. I do
| it all the time with YouTube videos.
|
| Or you can just copy the transcript that YouTube provides below
| the video.
| BrunoJo wrote:
| If you look for a cheaper transcription API you could als use
| https://Lemonfox.ai. We've optimized the API for long audio files
| and are much faster and cheaper than OpenAI.
| conjecTech wrote:
| If you are hosting whisper yourself, you can do something
| slightly more elegant, but with the same effect. You can
| downsample/pool the context 2:1 (or potentially more) a few
| layers into the encoder. That allows you to do the equivalent of
| speeding up audio without worry about potential spectral losses.
| For whisper large v3, that gets you nearly double throughput in
| exchange for a relative ~4% WER increase.
| nomercy400 wrote:
| Do you have more details or examples on how to downsample the
| context in the encoder? I treat the encoder as an opaque block,
| so I have no idea where to start.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I wonder how much time and battery
| transcoding/uploading/downloading over coffeeshop wifi would
| realy save vs just running it locally through optimized Whisper.
| georgemandis wrote:
| I had this same thought and won't pretend my fear was rational,
| haha.
|
| One thing that I thought was fairly clear in my write-up but
| feels a little lost in the comments: I didn't just try this
| with whisper. I tried it with their newer gpt-4o-transcription
| model, which seems considerably faster. There's no way to run
| that one locally.
| KPennig86852 wrote:
| But you know that you can run OpenAI's Whisper audio recognition
| model locally for free, right? It has very little GPU
| requirements, and the new "turbo" model works quite fast (there
| are also several Python libraries which make it significantly
| faster still).
| dajonker wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 pro is, in my usage, quite superior for high quality
| transcriptions of phone calls, in Dutch in my case. As long as
| you upload the audio to GCS there you can easily process
| conversations of over an hour. It correctly identified and
| labeled speakers.
|
| The cheaper 2.5 flash made noticeably more mistakes, for example
| it didn't correctly output numbers while the Pro model did.
|
| As for OpenAI, their gpt-4o-transcribe model did worse than 2.5
| flash, completely messing up names of places and/or people. Plus
| it doesn't label the conversation in turns, it just outputs a
| single continuous piece of text.
| yashasolutions wrote:
| the question would be how to do that but also still get proper
| time code when using whisper to get the subtitles
| ryanar wrote:
| In my experience, transcription software has no problem with
| transcribing sped up audio, or audio that is inaudible to humans
| or extremely loud (as long as not clipped), I wonder if LLM
| transcription works the same.
| mushishi wrote:
| Do the APIs support simultaneous voice transcription in a way
| that different voices are tagged? (either in text or as metadata)
|
| If so: could you split the audiofile and process the latter half
| by pitch shifting, say an octave, and then merging them together
| to get shorter audiofile -- then transcribe and join them back to
| a linear form, tagging removed. (You could insert some
| prerecorded voice to know at which point the second voice
| starts.). If pitch change is not enough, maybe manipulate it
| further by formants.
| godot wrote:
| If you're already doing local ffmpeg stuff (i.e. pretty involved
| with code and scripting already) you're only a couple of steps
| more away from just downloading the openai-whisper models (or
| even the faster-whisper models which runs about two times
| faster). Since this looks like personal usage and not building
| production quality code, you can use AI (e.g. Cursor) to write a
| script to run the whisper model inference in seconds.
|
| Then there is no cost at all to run any length of audio. (since
| cost seems to be the primary factor of this article)
|
| On my m1 mac laptop it takes me about 30 seconds to run it on a
| 3-minute audio file. I'm guessing for a 40 minute talk it takes
| about 5-10 minutes to run.
| ta8903 wrote:
| This "hack" also works in real life, youtubers low to talk slowly
| to increase the video runtime so I watch everything other than
| songs at 2x speed (and that's only because their player doesn't
| let you go faster).
| 7speter wrote:
| So wait... is whisper transcription really all that slow locally
| on a M3 Macbook? It's been a while since I used whispercpp, but I
| seem to remember it taking maybe 20 minutes on a comparatively
| slowpoke (and powerhungry) i5 12600k for maybe 40 minutes of
| audio; it might take less time on a faster m chip (maybe I'm
| imagining mobile apple silicon to be more performant than even
| desktop intel cpus), even less if there support built in for the
| built in gpu cores and other ai optimized silicon?
|
| Did I miss that the task was time sensitive?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-26 23:02 UTC)