Comment by jijijijij | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jijijijij | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Although technically tempting, I think most people don't want to have a transcript/recording of person to person calls, especially in a work context. Even if you aim for "just" an AI summary, there has to be a recording, there has to be a transcript somewhere. Do you trust in the promise of deletion?

Self-censorship, preference and knowledge falsification come to mind. People behave differently when there is no expectation of privacy, when they know they're observed. Apart from employment consequences, social alienation and mental health impact, panopticism may negatively affect creativity and innovation, when people behave less impulsive and more agreeable.

In my practical experience, (local) transcription also tends to be anything, but instant, if you don't allocate significant compute to the task. So your summary may not be available for some time after the call ended. You may need to cognitively backtrack quite a bit to confirm plausibility/"correctness" of the AI production.

Management will love it, everyone else will grow to hate it.

For me, at least, private personal talks/calls are the last bastion of interpersonal bonding and social relief in the modern (remote) work environment.

If you can't trust your coworkers, it might be a sign that it's time to move on. A healthy workplace relies on a certain level of trust.

We already naturally adjust our behavior depending on whether we're with friends, family, coworkers, or supervisors. If your boss is having an affair with the receptionist, you're not going to bring that up in a team meeting. That's self-censorship at play, without any need for surveillance or written records.

Regarding the mental health impact of workplace surveillance, I've never encountered someone explicitly linking their stress or burnout to call transcripts or AI-generated meeting summaries. Many complaints I've heard about mental health tend to focus on these issues:

* Excessive workloads from bosses or coworkers with no recognition.

* Transfer to toxic work environments engineered to make you quit a year before retirement.

* Invasive management that gets too involved in your personal life, knowing details you never told them.

* Boss sharing personal (sometimes even health) information with coworkers.

* Being called into work even when on vacation.

* Soul-crushing jobs with high stress, like call centers.

* An imbalanced work-life dynamic, leaving no time for family or personal care.

* Persistent crunch time with no relief.

* Office politics with gossip and backstabbing.

* Workplace mobbing.

* A number of personal issues that I'm not going to list here.

These are some reasons employees face burnout and dissatisfaction at work. While I'm open to hearing more about the potential mental health impact of call transcripts or AI-generated meeting summaries, it's not something that appears in the complaints I've come across.

That trust should not rely on people having to censure themselves all the time, since that would be harmful for an organization's performance in the long run. And a lot comes down to how that criticism is delivered.

Self-censorship is a natural part of social interactions; it's what allows us to navigate complex relationships and maintain harmony in a workplace. Consider all those intrusive thoughts you’ve had—the ones you chose not to voice because they were inappropriate or would create conflict. Our ability to filter what we say is key to functioning in social settings.

It's like a skill we take for granted. When you see people with certain mental disabilities who can't regulate their words, it quickly makes you realize why self-censorship matters. It's a critical tool for keeping things from descending into chaos.

The question isn't whether self-censorship is necessary, but rather, how much is appropriate. I shared the example of someone who revealed a boss's affair during a team meeting. It was a moment of impulsiveness that led to serious career consequences, to put it mildly.

I understand self-censorship, white lies, and similar social constructs are crucial so that people can get along at all, but sometimes it's important to be able to ruffle some feathers without fear of repercussions, for the benefit of the whole organisation. The Emperor's New Clothes and all that.

That ability goes out the window once all communication is written down verbatim because now people can point fingers and have a grudge with each others for years.

Now, that affair with the receptionist is really HR's problem, and it's just great for one's prospects at the company to inconsiderately flame on the boss' way of doing things (not!). But somehow it should be possible to criticize things without having to join management at the golf club or at pub crawl...

> it's not something that appears in the complaints I've come across.

It reads to me like it is.

Arguably five to six of the issues in your list are exacerbated (if not enabled) by constant surveillance. Call transcripts are one more thing that adds to that feeling of surveillance.

A different angle: cutting private personal talks and interpersonal bonding can help a lot in remote environments.

It might feel paradoxal, but as there's little context on each other's private life in the first place, private talk stays limited and trite (basically close to grocery lane small talk)

For instance imagine having a call for reworking a service and the other side starts asking what you did during the weekend, which happens to be medical follow up for your kids on the spectrum. Either you start explaining all your life, or you just cut it down and deal with the purpose of the meeting.

There's of course a ton of personal preference, some people thrive in grocery lane talks. I just wouldn't expect most people to be so.

Luckily I managed to avoid socially alienated work environments so far. I actually enjoy working even.

I presume the vast majority of humans needs and enjoys social warmth, and a personal connection. You can escalate almost any conversation out of grocery lane talk with one or two questions, so your experience is maybe a bit on you, too. Also don't shun chitchat, there is subtext, belonging and trust building encoded. It's an offer and a compliment.

Apart from basic needs, this also creates an environment more resilient to worker exploitation.

> social warmth, and a personal connection

Yes, definitely, though people going the full-remote route tend to get enough of it to not seek more in the work environment. It's the first time I've ever been in a team where half the people are either actively parenting (taking the kids to school etc.) or fully engaged in a different activity circle (side gigs are ok).

Discussions are fun during offline events/retreats, just not during the meetings.

> resilient to worker exploitation.

Thanks, this is an important angle I didn't consider. I wouldn't drop that kind of inquiry in a casual discussion, but it's something that needs its time and place to check on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com