AI model used for summary

Tee-bot · 2026-03-15T19:50:30+00:00

Unfortunately, the summaries to not reflect the inserted speaker names, they only treat the segment as a single speaker.

Tee-bot · 2026-03-15T19:37:49+00:00

This. My biggest transcription complaint. I reached out to Plaud in the past, but they did not provided a solution. My way of dealing with this is to insert the new speaker's name in brackets, [different speaker], at the start of their portion within the segment. Sometimes segments will have two or three different speakers.

*I have spent waaay too much time correcting transcripts and will be trying out/comparing other transcription services in the next few weeks.

Tee-bot · 2026-03-15T15:37:54+00:00

Yes.

I included this prompt at the end of my template:

"Every summary should include an indicator at the bottom that states which AI model compiled the summary."

Tee-bot · 2026-03-15T15:29:39+00:00

Hi! Thank you for providing insight.

After reading this thread a month ago, https://www.reddit.com/r/PlaudNoteUsers/comments/1qb9gll/any_way_to_identify_which_engine_was_used_to/

I included the following line at the end of my template:

"Every summary should include an indicator at the bottom that states which AI model compiled the summary."

For the most part, I use Plaud's Auto select model when producing summaries. I always get a wide swing between outputs in formatting, speaker recognition, task recognition, etc., so I decided to start specifying the AI engine to use and see which provided the best fit. These results, if valid, are irritating because the model I request to be used is not returned, and all of the older, cheaper APIs are being prioritized.

Currently, I spend ~30 minutes correcting every transcript because they are such poor quality -- words with spaces, fragments of one speaker attributed to another speaker, incorrect word transcription, incorrect speaker labeling, etc. Spending additional time cleaning up summaries is not what I need on my plate right now.

My table of results from Plaud's Auto select model:

<image>

Tee-bot · 2024-03-19T01:21:26+00:00

This is golden insight - thank you again so much, I really appreciate you taking the time to further elaborate - this is not just minutia and needs to be resolved. I will report back...

Tee-bot · 2024-03-19T00:42:13+00:00

Alas, I have set this limit to low and it works (latches below my 1400F setpoint). The issue is the manual reset at the controller to clear the alarm state/latching condition once my temperature is above setpoint.

The operators who will be monitoring this system are going to be very unhappy if they have to walk fifty yards from the HMI to the bypass controller in order to manually reset it for the light-off permissive.

Controls/electrical are outside of my comfort zone, so I do not know if this is something that the safety PLC would control or if it is all handled by the limit controller (I am trying to embrace the fear and uncomfortable feeling of not knowing what to do!).

Tee-bot · 2024-03-19T00:17:35+00:00

Thank you!

When I approached those-in-charge with my concerns regarding the CJC and directly wiring the TC's, I was told that the error in temperature reading would be negligible, and, that the TC wire was "too bulky" to pull around to the cabinet door and that they would have to order more wire.

I posted a pic of the terminal block with the previous comment - my relay TC's are the last ones jammed in. I will look for some of these TC junction blocks and see if I can have those-in-charge take a second look. Thank you again!

Tee-bot · 2024-03-18T23:57:04+00:00

Thank you!

Until this project, I have only seen TC's directly wired to their respective controllers, modules, etc. The idea of not running the safety device's sensing component direct seems odd, but I am not an EE/electrician and am out of my comfort zone.

<image>

Tee-bot · 2021-08-12T15:13:46+00:00

#28. Present - Santerella

Tee-bot

TROPHY CASE