Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wasted hours editing Editing is a craft. You have to watch everything, otherwise you don't know what you have. A machine organising stringouts and selects can work for interviews, but not for action. But even then it is only parsing your media for semantic intent. It misses the way things are said, which often imparts a different meaning. You can use AI features for editing. But it is unlikely you will be making an…
I work professionally in commercials. You literally wrote the very solid counter argument into your own comment. For interviews, this saves hundreds of hours. Giant amounts of social content are now interview-like, including podcasts. Your argument makes little sense to me. For narrative editing, this is a minor help. For interview-like content it cuts work by 30-70% maybe. its probably a gamechanger.
If something has compiled some great selects for me, I only have material based on what is said. But I don't know how it is said - which to me is everything. Yes, this goes for podcasts too. What I make just won't be as good as if I'd have taken the time to go through everything.
I even notice this with things like NBA highlights. It's clear the editor (or bot) never watched the game. There were moments in it that are interesting and significant. Even small incidents that are actually clutch to the outcome of the match. But it is clear they've quickly compiled all of the goals and bashed out something mediocre which does not tell the story.