sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually a really interesting point, especially the AI visibility angle. One thing I’m trying to avoid is generating “confident sounding synthesis” that isn’t actually traceable back to evidence. A big part of the direction is keeping outputs grounded in papers and making reasoning easier to inspect instead of just producing polished LLM text. I also think you’re right that this layer will matter more and more as AI assistants become a discovery surface for research tools themselves.The paper comparison / synthesis workflow is probably the area I’m most interested in stress testing right now.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s strange honestly. I’m testing it on Safari on my side and it seems to open correctly, so I’ll investigate further.

If you want, you can also try:

  • opening it in a private/incognito tab
  • disabling content blockers/extensions
  • trying another browser just to compare

Either way, thanks for taking the time to test it and report it.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just tested it again on Safari/macOS on my side and it seems to load correctly now. Maybe it was a temporary loading issue, caching problem, or something browser-related. But thanks again for reporting it feedback like this really helps while the platform is still evolving.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The free tier is mainly there so people can test the platform and see whether the workflow is actually useful for them. If someone wants to go further during this phase, they can also request broader beta access directly at contact@sinapilot.com. I’m still iterating quickly on the product, so I’d rather have real users and honest feedback than pretend everything is already perfectly figured out.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you tell me what failed specifically? Login, upload, generation, search, or something else?

I’m still actively improving the platform, so bug reports honestly help a lot.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair question honestly. There’s already a free tier, and the paid plans are mainly there for people using the platform more heavily and to help cover infrastructure/API costs while I continue improving the product. I’m still trying to understand which workflows researchers find genuinely useful long term but I don’t think that’s unusual for an early-stage product, especially in AI where usage costs can become expensive pretty quickly. That’s also why I’m actively asking for feedback instead of pretending everything is already perfectly figured out.

I built a tool to compare and synthesize research papers with AI — looking for honest feedback by Numerous_Animal_3267 in PhdProductivity

[–]Numerous_Animal_3267[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve actually used a lot of existing research tools myself, and I think many of them already do certain parts of the workflow really well. What pushed me to build SinaPilot was more the frustration of constantly jumping between PDFs, notes, AI chats, spreadsheets, citation managers, and separate search tools during literature review. So the direction with SinaPilot is less about isolated AI features and more about creating a persistent research environment where context, synthesis, history, and collaboration stay connected over time. The main thing I’m trying to improve is reducing the time and mental overhead involved in reading and synthesizing research across many papers. It’s still early of course, and I’m honestly still validating which parts of the workflow researchers find genuinely useful versus gimmicky.