The choice between AI and manual methods depends on your needs: speed, accuracy, or context. Here is a quick summary:
AI: Faster, consistent, and efficient for large volumes. Ideal for simple interviews or pre-selection.
Manual: More accurate in emotional nuances, technical or legal contexts. Requires more time and resources.
Hybrid: Combines the speed of AI with human review to balance accuracy and efficiency.
Quick Comparison
Quick Conclusion
Use AI to save time on repetitive tasks and manual for critical situations such as legal or medical. The hybrid approach reduces errors by up to 35% and optimizes resources.
Now, let’s delve into how to choose the best method for your interviews.
Transcribe your interviews or audio using AI: Turboscribe
Accuracy in Documentation
The accuracy in documenting interviews varies greatly between manual and automated methods. According to current data, manual transcriptions achieve between 95% and 98% accuracy in capturing subtle details, while AI tools achieve between 85% and 95% under ideal conditions [4][5].
Method Comparison
The differences between the two methods become clear when evaluating key aspects:
Capabilities and Limitations of AI
AI has significantly improved in documentation, but it is not without failures. For example, a study from the University of Michigan showed that in medical interviews, AI achieved 85.7% accuracy, although it made serious errors in 12% of medication names [1][3].
"Current AI systems show a 15% improvement in speaker differentiation in group settings and a 25% reduction in accent-related errors, but still have an 8-12% gap compared to human accuracy in complex legal and medical scenarios" [5][6].
Tools like Jamy.ai have made advances by including technical vocabularies and support for multiple languages. However, they still face challenges in complex situations.
Contexts Where Manual Documentation is Preferable
Despite advancements, there are situations where manual note-taking remains essential:
Legal Environments: The precise interpretation of legal terms and contextual nuances is crucial.
Health Sector: Requires accuracy in specific terminology and clinical observations.
Qualitative Research: Ensures the fidelity of data in interviews and in-depth analysis [1][5].
Manual documentation is especially useful in situations with jargon, high emotional load, environmental noise, or when dealing with multiple complex languages.
Speed and Resource Use
Time Requirements
When analyzing processing speed, differences between methods are clear. Manual transcription can take between 4 and 6 hours for each hour of recorded audio [1][4]. On the other hand, AI-based tools process content in real time or almost immediately, which represents a considerable advantage in terms of efficiency.
Personnel and Tools Needed
The resources needed vary significantly depending on the method used. Here is a breakdown:
Manual Method:
High-performance computers (between $800 and $1200 each) [1].
Specialized transcription software.
Trained human resources, including transcribers and verifiers.
Physical and logical storage infrastructure.
Automated Method:
Compatible mobile devices, with an estimated cost of $200 to $500.
Stable internet connection.
Integration with video conferencing platforms.
Cloud storage space.
Error Correction
Error correction also shows important differences. AI tools allow for quick digital adjustments, with access to timestamps that facilitate verification [4]. In contrast, manual transcription requires iterative reviews, which can extend correction times [1].
Maintenance also varies. Manual methods often require annual equipment updates (equivalent to 15-20% of the initial cost) and periodic audits. Automated methods, on the other hand, require monthly template updates, which usually take between 2 and 4 hours, in addition to compliance checks [1][3][5][7].
These differences highlight the importance of analyzing operational priorities, a topic that will be addressed later in the section on method selection.
Security and Legal Requirements
Data Protection
Security is a key aspect when comparing manual methods and AI-based solutions. While traditional methods rely on physical controls that tend to be costly, AI tools focus on more scalable digital protections.
Manual methods present 42% of physical vulnerabilities, while AI systems face a greater risk of massive leaks, reaching 89% [1][2][3].
Bias Reduction
Bias is a significant challenge in contexts such as legal and medical fields, where both manual and automated methods have limitations. A 2023 study found that 68% of AI systems used in human resources replicated gender biases present in historical data [6][7]. On the other hand, human transcribers can unconsciously introduce cultural biases during language interpretation [1]. For automated solutions, bias mitigation depends on specific and careful programming.
Compliance with Legal Standards
1. Necessary Certifications
Both manual methods and automated systems must comply with various certifications, depending on the usage context [1][3][5].
2. Emerging Regulations
The proposal for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, set for 2025, classifies automated documentation systems as high risk. This implies mandatory bias audits and human oversight [6][7]. Simultaneously, California's AB 331 law requires real-time disclosure of AI use in job interviews.
3. Data Retention
Physical records require storage under specific controls [1], while digital systems allow for programmable retention. In the financial sector, digital systems have shown to reduce data retention costs by 63% over 7 years [3][4].
"Manual methods resolved 92% of deletion requests within 24 hours compared to 78% of AI systems" [2][6]
How to Choose Your Method
Selection Factors
The decision between manual and AI-based methods primarily depends on three aspects: workload volume, legal requirements, and context complexity. For example, for organizations that conduct more than 50 interviews per week, AI can reduce processing time by 40% to 60% [2]. However, in sensitive areas like medicine or legal fields, where accuracy is key, manual methods are still more reliable [1].
Combined Use of Methods
A hybrid approach, combining AI for fast transcriptions and human review at critical points, has shown effective results. This method decreases errors by 35% compared to the exclusive use of a single method [8].
To optimize resources, adapt the method to the type of interview:
Pre-Selection Interviews: Ideal for automated solutions that allow for efficient cost control.
Technical Interviews: A hybrid approach is recommended to balance technical accuracy and qualitative observation.
Price vs Benefits
The financial impact of each method is evident:
"Hybrid approaches have demonstrated a 35% reduction in documentation errors while keeping costs 22% below purely manual methods" [8].
Although AI has an initial cost of $0.10-0.30 per minute, this expense is quickly amortized. Companies that manage more than 100 interviews a month typically recover their investment in less than six months, thanks to savings generated in time and compliance reviews.
Conclusion: Better Use of Both Methods
Main Points
The best way to document combines the use of AI to save time and human review to ensure accuracy. In sectors such as legal and medical, this balanced approach has proven to harness the best of both methods.
Hybrid systems have shown positive results. Organizations that implement them can maintain a high level of accuracy while reducing resource and time usage. This model leverages the strengths of each method according to the specific needs of each interview.
What's Next
The use of hybrid systems continues to grow, backed by their effectiveness in practical situations. Additionally, they require only 8 to 12 hours of training, much less than fully manual methods.
Success lies in adjusting both methods depending on the particular needs of each interview. This combination directly addresses the challenges of accuracy and efficiency discussed in the earlier sections.
FAQs
Do interviewers like it when you take notes?
Yes, taking notes during interviews is often considered a professional and well-regarded practice. Interviewers especially value this habit for two key reasons:
It helps maintain objectivity when evaluating candidates.
It facilitates a more accurate comparison between different profiles.
However, it is important to find a good balance. Experts suggest spending about 70% of the time on eye contact and conversation, leaving the remaining 30% for note-taking [1]. This balanced approach aligns with the advantages of hybrid methods mentioned in the section "Combined Use of Methods".
What is the best AI transcription software for meetings?
In 2025, AI transcription tools have evolved to surpass previous limitations, offering features like support for multiple languages, greater accuracy, and integration with popular video conferencing platforms.
Jamy.ai is one of the standout options, designed to address specific challenges such as accuracy in legal contexts. It offers customizable templates, real-time verification, and advanced functionalities such as automatic task detection and support for over 36 languages with contextual adjustments during conversations. Additionally, it integrates natively with CRMs, enhancing productivity.
In critical situations, such as those described in high-risk contexts, it is recommended to combine automatic transcriptions with human review. Tools like the timestamps from Jamy.ai facilitate this process, allowing for more precise reviews and aligning with the suggested hybrid approach above.
Related Blog Posts
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Free trial plan for Jamy?
What are the pricing plans?
How does Jamy work?
How is my information protected?
Does Jamy integrate with other tools?
Jamy.ai
Jamy.ai is an AI-powered meeting assistant that joins your virtual calls, records audio and video, generates transcriptions, summaries, and extracts the main topics and tasks related to the meeting.
©2024 Copyrights Reserved by Jamy Technologies, LLC