Look, I have decades of experience dealing with human speech, and not just as an editor - I can trace the human voice from neural impulses in Broca's region through the physiology of vocal production, mechanical transduction into electrical signals, discrete fourier transforms of the resultant waveforms into spectral information and back again, the reproduction of altered signals from time-aligned speakers to create a sense of spatialization, how those are processed in the human ear, and how the cilia are connected by nerves back to your brain. I'm a good enough editor that I can recognize many short words by sight of a waveform, or make 10 edits in a row by sight and know it will sound good on playback.
So when I say that machine transcription is as good as human realtime transcription now, I say so with the clear expectation that those decades of craft are very close to being rendered obsolete. I absolutely expect to hand off the mechanical part of editing to a machine within 2 years or so. It's already at the stage where I edit some interviews as text, like in a word processor, and then export the edited document as audio and it's Good Enough - not for every speaker, but more than half the time.
NPR and a lot of commercial broadcasters cut their material this way already, because you can get the same result from 30 minutes of reading and text editing that would require 3 hours of pure audio editing with no transcription.
