Over the last decade, most speech-to-text services admitted keeping and humans listening to source recordings beyond what was disclosed in terms of service.

In fact, one of the early “AI/ML” transcription services (which at the time blew away competitors including Google) turned out to be almost zero machine processing, almost entirely a human transcription farm in Egypt.

With almost 100% of the services, including those provided by members of FAANG, admitting this, it seems the risk/reward calc didn’t deter, and a “give the benefit of the doubt” algo seems inappropriate.

I didn't say anyone or anything, in this case we're talking about a company that data mines as one of their primary business models that has been caught lying about the extent of data collection multiple times. They've also been sued successfully multiple times and have settled cases out of court (i.e., paid settlements privately).

I'm not sure what happened, but there used to be a time where not trusting a company like Google would be the smart stance to take. How could anyone with that much power possibly be trustworthy?