Organizations mainly gArtificial Energy Intelligence (AI) for research purposes and content creation. But AI Generative by far wider application. In fact, one of the best ways to use AI is simple automation. It means finding the tedious you aversionfind the tasks that take a disproportionate quantity of time and energyAnd Apply a genetive AI tools.
A potential target for AI is to meet notes. At Charity Digital, we have generally given meeting notes to a reluctant individual, with Vague and informal rules to follow. Note The takers must follow an existing model, listen actively during the session, aim to use fleas, assign an actionS and roles to individuals, examine and organize notes after the session, Include only the necessary information, And share them with all the people involved. But the rules have not always been followed.
Despite early Road dams,, AI tools are now capable of take Effective meeting notes, adhering to the above rules. So with this spirit, We decided to test three of the best platforms – and we did it by using them all on one of our Teams Meetings. Below,, We explore the results.
Breaststroke is an increasingly popular note tool. He can record, transcribe, highlight and summarize Teams meetings, with various others functionalities. Bravo is a really simple Tool to integrate in the meetings of your teams: you can simply start operation The platform and he requests admission to the session, which alerts all the participants who You are Use of an AI for the creation of notes.
We have used Bravo for notation For a few months now. The reason: Reliability and clarity. In The meeting in which we tested the platforms of AI, Fathom actually obtained time with each session, starting with more chatter and more personal updates: “ discussions About the weather, Wimbledon and dress rehearsals for the next shows. It must be said: we live fascinating lives.
The AI tool was swept away in time order with A degree of precision,, closely imitate points marry specified. Fathom obtained most of the names we have discussed – In terms of platforms and individuals – although some have been poorly spelled or misunderstood.
Fathom lacks excessive details, which is an advantage and a inconvenience. It offers clarity but can feel a little vague. Each agenda point, for example, received almost the same amount of details – a small paragraph – despite each discussion requiring different levels of complexity and time.
THE functionality oF Copilot is broad-going. The Microsoft tool can Boost data analysissupport effective Plan, customize writing and improve MeMos, drafts and Presentations. MAll organizations now use the platform to take meeting notes.
Because the co -pilot is a Microsoft productThe tool is integrated into your teams. This means that you can automatically use the toolbut Do not forget to always make sure that everyone on the call is comfortable with you using AI.
A huge advantage of Copilot is that, for latecomers, they can access a summary of what is Already transcribed – allowing you to quickly rise at speed. You can Also Quick co -pilot in real time. It meansMid-Call, You can improve THE Meeting by asking, for example: ‘Provide a question to move us forward? or “create a table of advantages and disadvantages concerning the subject discussed‘.
In terms of our meeting results, Copilot was certainly more meticulous than Bravo, with segmented Fleas under each major section. As with Fathom, the results felt clear And product Very few errors. But the tool was maybe not As clear as Fathomwith sOme du AdditionaL FE informationUnit Useless, which makes it more difficult to know where to concentrate.
A Co -pilot profit Was Action points. Under the section of “follow -up tasks”, the tool gave clear instructions, assigned to individuals, in short and succinct sentences which have always reached the node of the problem. I was given such a task under the name ‘Ewan’ – an understandable error, based on pronunciation of my nameThe one that each IA platform has done.
Otteris an automated recording and transcription serviceWho uses an AI meeting assistant to record audio, write notes, capture action elements and generate summaries. THE platform strengths Extracts from your meeting notes at GEnergy take -out meals, then assign action elements to teammates directly from Otter. He generate transcription in real timewhich means that Reunion participants can scroll to review the existing grades – Good news for latecomers.
In terms of our meeting, Otter was the most in-depth platform. It started with A Short From all the meeting, then hypertext to the complete transcription, then gave action points. Otter, it seems, knows that many people do not You want to access the full notes, start finishing and prefer to take a look at a summary to see if something relevant to them has been discussed.
We loved Otter arrangementThe way he presented the meeting notesallowing us to jump directly from the summary and action points, then to enter into the details if necessary. But It made some mistakes. He called Joel “Joel” and “Joelle” and presumed his presence – even if he was absent. The references to Joel were considered to be Joel making specific points in Reunion.
Otter was the most complete tool but made the strange mistake. But we really appreciated the exit layoutwhich allowed readers to spend as fast as possible as possible, to find relevantt information.
Conclusion: What AI is the best for your meetings?
Our recommendation depends on your needs. BreaststrokeAccording to our experience, provides the cleanest outings and, in a short period of time, arrives at the knot of what was discussed. But this could prove to be limited in terms of complexity. SO Fathom would be an excellent productivity tool if your charity East Do not deal with the most complex questions – and needs fast, simple and clean notes.
Co -pilot Has a great integrated feature, allowing you to improve meetings, and action points were obviously the best. Copilot is better placed for organizations that Need a little more detail, or Need to add value to their meetings. As with Fathom, this could prove to be limited in terms of complexity.
Otter.a certainly proven the most meticulous, at least in THE initial presidentEntrance of notes. And we particularly liked the hierarchy of his Structured outputs: Summary, link to transcription, action notes, then describe. But Otter made some small mistakes, which could prove to be frustrating.
I hope that the above will enlighten your decision-making and allow you to give you an idea of the best platform to meet your needs.