A transcript is not an interview. It is a record of words that a person still has to interpret in context. Automated transcription can save hours, especially for a small publication. It can also mishear a name, flatten a pause, or turn a tentative thought into a clean sentence that sounds more certain than the speaker was. Treating the output as ready-to-publish copy is an editorial error.
The human work happens before and after the recording. A reporter decides what is worth asking, follows an unexpected answer, notices what was not said, checks a claim with another source, and gives the subject a fair opportunity to clarify. An assistant can help organize notes or flag passages for review. It cannot take responsibility for whether the resulting story represents another person honestly.
UNHYP will use tools where they reduce clerical load, but we should not call a generated conversation an interview or invent a creator’s testimony. If a piece contains no direct reporting, it should be labeled analysis or opinion. If a quote appears, it should trace back to a real, checked source.
That discipline is especially important in coverage of AI, where impressive demonstrations can travel faster than verification. The best use of automation may be to clear space for more patient listening, not to simulate the evidence we have not gathered.
This is guide, not a reported interview. AI-assisted drafting and original generated editorial artwork were reviewed for publication; the artwork does not depict a documented event.