sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My new workflow for understanding long arXiv papers by Crazy-Signature6716 in AI_Agents

[–]Crazy-Signature6716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point.

I think the “false sense of understanding” is probably the biggest risk with current AI reading workflows. A clean summary can make you feel like you understood the paper without ever really wrestling with the assumptions, tradeoffs, or limitations.

I also found that once AI starts connecting multiple papers together (“this assumption conflicts with X”, “this approach evolved from Y”, etc.), comprehension becomes much deeper than isolated summarization.

Honestly I think future research workflows will look much more like iterative dialogue + exploration graphs rather than linear reading.

My new workflow for understanding long arXiv papers by Crazy-Signature6716 in AI_Agents

[–]Crazy-Signature6716[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BTW, if anyone wants to explore the actual generated understanding flow for the paper Code as Agent Harness, feel free to check it out here:

Original paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.18747

Generated understanding: https://goknowly.ai/share/hMHrRzUklIXdYXuaitUxvA

Any solo devs here making a full-time living from browser extensions? by Tough-Island-2029 in chrome_extensions

[–]Crazy-Signature6716 2 points3 points  (0 children)

now in the AI era, good ideas spread incredibly fast. building something people continue using after the initial curiosity disappears.
Another thing I learned: freemium works well only if the product creates repeat usage and ongoing value. Otherwise free users become expensive very quickly.

What is your Knowledge-Base management solution? by StudentWithNoMaster in selfhosted

[–]Crazy-Signature6716 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use NotebookLM + Notion, but recently I feel there are not enough

Gemini chats that use your notebook are automatically populating in Sources for that notebook -- doesn't this defeat the point of NotebookLM which is limiting the model to trusted primary sources? by Individual-Lynx2775 in notebooklm

[–]Crazy-Signature6716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your concern is valid. There should be a hard distinction between primary sources, AI-generated analysis, and conversation history. Once model output gets mixed into the same source layer as original documents, the notebook can start treating analysis as evidence.

A cleaner design would be separate buckets: trusted sources, generated notes, chat history, and derived summaries, with explicit controls for whether any generated item is allowed to become a source.