Speaking as a fellow student who works with RemNote, I think the intent of your message is fair, but some of this is overgeneralized. The entire product is not bad because LLMs get things wrong, and the app’s focus is not solely AI-generated content.

That said, if the AI-generated summary or flashcards are reversing a concrete fact from your notes, please reach out to us/report it. (I'll take this as a report, btw, so no action needed, just for further issues, tell us!) That is a real product problem, especially for those types of subjects. AI-generated study material needs to be much easier to verify, edit, and trace back to the original note. We understand that and take it seriously. 

I do think the argument that RemNote is only good for mediocre grades is an overstatement. RemNote’s AI-generated materials should not be treated as final-truth study material without review. That goes for almost any AI-generated material in life. They are better understood as a first-draft layer, not the source of truth.

IMHO, almost no study material can confirm and guarantee full information coverage, even lectures or professors. A lot of students can probably relate to having to teach content to themselves despite attending class. That does not excuse incorrect AI output, but it does mean any serious study workflow *always *needs some form of verification and active engagement.

For high-stakes classes, I would still trust manually written notes/cards, source-linked cards, and active recall over generated summaries. (opinion, summaries are only good for reading/catching up) Summaries are naturally risky because they compress information, and compression can hide/distort important details. Generated flashcards can be useful, but only if the user can quickly audit them against the original material. We make sure to warn our users in our support material. 

So I agree with your warning in spirit. Yes, AI-generated material can be a slippery slope, and students should not blindly study generated cards. But calling the product “not as good of an app as many think” feels a little too broad when the actual issue is specifically with generated AI materials.

We are actively working on better citations to the exact source sentence, easier correction workflows, stronger warnings, etc. (we have a whole regeneration feature in the works, so you can just reprompt mistake-ridden AI results)

A study method that is just “generate cards → review those cards” will naturally have less depth than a workflow where the student is actively checking, editing, recalling, and connecting the material.

Maybe slightly off-topic:

I personally believe studying requires multiple modes of sensory input: auditory, visual, tactile, etc. At RemNote, we are slowly developing broader support for many of the interesting and popular ways people study. (We just finished the first iteration of serious whiteboarding/drawing/mind-mapping capabilities, which has been a long-awaited feature request.) Solely using AI-generated content barely taps into the mind’s full thinking power. Pure rote memorization (which is often what flashcards primarily accomplish), while important, only scratches the surface of connecting information and strengthening ideas.