tom_hartke

A decent fraction of research is open access these days (it's highly dependent on the field, though). That fraction is also growing. We're building systems to access full texts whenever possible.

That makes sense. You should be able to right click - save as PDF and it will preserve the links, etc.

We'd love to talk and see if we can provide this. Seems like it would be really helpful. Can you email us ([email protected])?

Hadn't seen that. Very complementary. We don't address staying up to date or pull in community value metrics (other than total citations). It's a somewhat different goal to broadly gather emerging ideas and stay informed.

Can you be more specific? Like break it out into AND and OR statements? Or just more iteration back and forth? We find people more familiar with the system learn better strategies than the LLM can suggest.

If it's easy/fast to check the literature, hopefully people's instinct changes. If we had time, we should be doing that for any small idea.

Just save the report url! It will persist.

Also, on the usual system if you're logged in (instead of the HN free link), all your searches automatically get saved on a "history" page.

I think we associate learning/discovery with those moments because they happen together, not because they're causally related.

I think this is somewhat equivalent to how we used to have to learn 100 different integrals and derivatives in calculus. That's somewhat helpful. I learned to see patterns in math like that, the same way I learned a decent bit by browsing irrelevant abstracts and follow citation trails. But physically memorizing 100s of integrals is mostly a waste, and so are the irrelevant abstracts. You'll be much better at math (and hopefully science) if you can learn ~10 key integrals or read ~10 abstracts, and then spend the rest of your time understanding the high level patterns and implications by talking with an expert. Just like I can now ask GPT-4 to explain why some integral formula is true, which ones are related, and so on.

And that's the last point - these literature search tools aren't developing in isolation. We will get to have a local "expert" to discuss what we find with. That changes the cost-benefit analysis too.

Thanks! That's helpful to hear. Honestly just did numbers because the LLM has no trouble remembering which is which, and it's easier to programmatically parse out the citations to build hyperlinks (compared to names/years, where little variations creep in).

Emphasis is meant to be on "mind", like supporting better reasoning, but point taken.

Not a bad idea. Want to avoid too much complexity in pricing, though. Decision fatigue.

Latency, compute required, and lack of full texts (paywalled publisher content).