Summarizing Books as Podcasts – O’Reilly – The Future of Work Institute

Like nearly everybody, we had been impressed by the power of NotebookLM to generate podcasts: Two digital folks holding a dialogue. You can provide it some hyperlinks, and it’ll generate a podcast based mostly on the hyperlinks. The podcasts had been attention-grabbing and fascinating. However in addition they had some limitations.

The issue with NotebookLM is that, when you can provide it a immediate, it largely does what it’s going to do. It generates a podcast with two voices—one male, one feminine—and offers you little management over the outcome. There’s an non-obligatory immediate to customise the dialog, however that single immediate doesn’t let you do a lot. Particularly, you possibly can’t inform it which subjects to debate or in what order to debate them. You’ll be able to strive, but it surely gained’t hear. It additionally isn’t conversational, which is one thing of a shock now that we’ve all gotten used to chatting with AIs. You’ll be able to’t inform it to iterate by saying “That was good, however please generate a brand new model altering these particulars” like you possibly can with ChatGPT or Gemini.

Be taught sooner. Dig deeper. See farther.

Can we do higher? Can we combine our data of books and expertise with AI’s skill to summarize? We’ve argued (and can proceed to argue) that merely studying the best way to use AI isn’t sufficient; you have to learn to do one thing with AI that’s higher than what the AI might do by itself. It is advisable combine synthetic intelligence with human intelligence. To see what that will seem like in follow, we constructed our personal toolchain that offers us far more management over the outcomes. It’s a multistage pipeline:

We use AI to generate a abstract for every chapter of a ebook, ensuring that each one the necessary subjects are coated.
We use AI to assemble the chapter summaries right into a single abstract. This step basically offers us an prolonged define.
We use AI to generate a two-person dialogue that turns into the podcast script.
We edit the script by hand, once more ensuring that the summaries cowl the appropriate subjects in the appropriate order. That is additionally a possibility to right errors and hallucinations.
We use Google’s speech-to-text multispeaker API (nonetheless in preview) to generate a abstract podcast with two contributors.

Why are we specializing in summaries? Summaries curiosity us for a number of causes. First, let’s face it: Having two nonexistent folks talk about one thing you wrote is fascinating—particularly since they sound genuinely and excited. Listening to the voices of nonexistent cyberpeople talk about your work makes you are feeling such as you’re dwelling in a sci-fi fantasy. Extra virtually: Generative AI is definitely good at summarization. There are few errors and virtually no outright hallucinations. Lastly, our customers need summarization. On O’Reilly Answers, our clients steadily ask for summaries: summarize this ebook, summarize this chapter. They wish to discover the knowledge they want. They wish to discover out whether or not they really want to learn the ebook—and in that case, what components. A abstract helps them do this whereas saving time. It lets them uncover rapidly whether or not the ebook shall be useful, and does so higher than the again cowl copy or a blurb on Amazon.

With that in thoughts, we needed to assume by what probably the most helpful abstract can be for our members. Ought to there be a single speaker or two? When a single synthesized voice summarized the ebook, my eyes (ears?) glazed over rapidly. It was a lot simpler to take heed to a podcast-style abstract the place the digital contributors had been excited and enthusiastic, like those on NotebookLM, than to a lecture. The give and take of a dialogue, even when simulated, gave the podcasts power {that a} single speaker didn’t have.

How lengthy ought to the abstract be? That’s an necessary query. Sooner or later, the listener loses curiosity. We might feed a ebook’s complete textual content right into a speech synthesis mannequin and get an audio model—we could but do this; it’s a product some folks need. However on the entire, we anticipate summaries to be minutes lengthy moderately than hours. I would hear for 10 minutes, possibly 30 if it’s a subject or a speaker that I discover fascinating. However I’m notably impatient after I take heed to podcasts, and I don’t have a commute or different downtime for listening. Your preferences and your scenario could also be a lot completely different.

What precisely do listeners anticipate from these podcasts? Do customers anticipate to study, or do they solely wish to discover out whether or not the ebook has what they’re on the lookout for? That will depend on the subject. I can’t see somebody studying Go from a abstract—possibly extra to the purpose, I don’t see somebody who’s fluent in Go studying the best way to program with AI. Summaries are helpful for presenting the important thing concepts introduced within the ebook: For instance, the summaries of Cloud Native Go gave a superb overview of how Go may very well be used to handle the problems confronted by folks writing software program that runs within the cloud. However actually studying this materials requires examples, writing code, and training—one thing that’s out of bounds in a medium that’s restricted to audio. I’ve heard AIs learn out supply code listings in Python; it’s terrible and ineffective. Studying is extra seemingly with a ebook like Facilitating Software program Structure, which is extra about ideas and concepts than code. Somebody might come away from the dialogue with some helpful concepts and presumably put them into follow. However once more, the podcast abstract is just an summary. To get all the worth and element, you want the ebook. In a current article, Ethan Mollick writes, “Asking for a abstract is not the same as reading for yourself. Asking AI to resolve an issue for you will not be an efficient approach to study, even when it feels prefer it needs to be. To study one thing new, you’ll should do the studying and pondering your self.”

One other distinction between the NotebookLM podcasts and ours could also be extra necessary. The podcasts we generated from our toolchain are all about six minutes lengthy. The podcasts generated by NotebookLM are within the 10- to 25-minute vary. The longer size might enable the NotebookLM podcasts to be extra detailed, however in actuality that’s not what occurs. Fairly than discussing the ebook itself, NotebookLM tends to make use of the ebook as a leaping off level for a broader dialogue. The O’Reilly-generated podcasts are extra directed. They observe the ebook’s construction as a result of we offered a plan, an overview, for the AI to observe. The digital podcasters nonetheless categorical enthusiasm, nonetheless usher in concepts from different sources, however they’re headed in a course. The longer NotebookLM podcasts, in distinction, can appear aimless, looping again round to select up concepts they’ve already coated. To me, not less than, that appears like an necessary level. Granted, utilizing the ebook because the jumping-off level for a broader dialogue can also be helpful, and there’s a stability that must be maintained. You don’t need it to really feel such as you’re listening to the desk of contents. However you additionally don’t need it to really feel unfocused. And in order for you a dialogue of a ebook, it is best to get a dialogue of the ebook.

None of those AI-generated podcasts are with out limitations. An AI-generated abstract isn’t good at detecting and reflecting on nuances within the unique writing. With NotebookLM, that clearly wasn’t below our management. With our personal toolchain, we might actually edit the script to mirror no matter we needed, however the voices themselves weren’t below our management and wouldn’t essentially observe the textual content’s lead. (It’s controversial that reflecting the nuances of a 250-page ebook in a six-minute podcast is a shedding proposition.) Bias—a sort of implied nuance—is an even bigger situation. Our first experiments with NotebookLM tended to have the feminine voice asking the questions, with the male voice offering the solutions, although that appeared to enhance over time. Our toolchain gave us management, as a result of we offered the script. We gained’t declare that we had been unbiased—no one ought to make claims like that—however not less than we managed how our digital folks introduced themselves.

Our experiments are completed; it’s time to indicate you what we created. We’ve taken 5 books, generated quick podcasts summarizing every with each NotebookLM and our toolchain, and posted each units on oreilly.com and in our studying platform. We’ll be including extra books in 2025. Hearken to them—see what works for you. And please tell us what you think!