I agree, LLMs have biases. It was my primary desire to build this tool and put the weight on the LLMs to synthesize rather than think about and interpret the subjects. It's actually the main goal of this tool - maybe I don't articulate that as well as I could be - I'm open to suggestions here!
I agree to first figuring out which research is most important and reliable. There is a planning stage, to consider the sources and which ones hold credibility.
In addition, the user has full control over the sources the tool uses, and even add their own (MCP tools).
In addition, being open source, you have full control over the flow/prompts/source methods/etc and as a result can optimize this yourself and even contribute improvements to ensure this benefits research as a whole.
I welcome your feedback, and any code amendments you propose to improve the tool. You clearly understand what makes good research and your contributions will be highly valued by all of us.
I agree to first figuring out which research is most important and reliable. There is a planning stage, to consider the sources and which ones hold credibility.
In addition, the user has full control over the sources the tool uses, and even add their own (MCP tools).
In addition, being open source, you have full control over the flow/prompts/source methods/etc and as a result can optimize this yourself and even contribute improvements to ensure this benefits research as a whole.
I welcome your feedback, and any code amendments you propose to improve the tool. You clearly understand what makes good research and your contributions will be highly valued by all of us.