Posted by jbdamask 10 hours ago
Enter, Now I Get It!
I made this app for curious people. Simply upload an article and after a few minutes you'll have an interactive web page showcasing the highlights. Generated pages are stored in the cloud and can be viewed from a gallery.
Now I Get It! uses the best LLMs out there, which means the app will improve as AI improves.
Free for now - it's capped at 20 articles per day so I don't burn cash.
A few things I (and maybe you will) find interesting:
* This is a pure convenience app. I could just as well use a saved prompt in Claude, but sometimes it's nice to have a niche-focused app. It's just cognitively easier, IMO.
* The app was built for myself and colleagues in various scientific fields. It can take an hour or more to read a detailed paper so this is like an on-ramp.
* The app is a place for me to experiment with using LLMs to translate scientific articles into software. The space is pregnant with possibilities.
* Everything in the app is the result of agentic engineering, e.g. plans, specs, tasks, execution loops. I swear by Beads (https://github.com/steveyegge/beads) by Yegge and also make heavy use of Beads Viewer (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46314423) and Destructive Command Guard (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46835674) by Jeffrey Emanuel.
* I'm an AWS fan and have been impressed by Opus' ability to write good CFN. It still needs a bunch of guidance around distributed architecture but way better than last year.
The actual explanation (using code blocks) is almost impossible to read and comprehend.
I could change to a simple cost+ model but don’t want to bother until I see if people like it.
Ideas for splitting the difference so more people can use it without breaking my bank appreciated
I'd probably use it now.
probably need to have better pre-loaded examples, and divided up more granularly into subfields. e.g. "Physical sciences" vs "physics", "mathematics and statistics" vs "mathematics". I couldn't find anything remotely related to my own interests to test it on. maybe it's just being populated by people using it, though? in which case, I'll check back later.
but...
Error Daily processing limit reached. Please try again tomorrow.
One LLM feature I've been trying to teach Alltrna is scraping out data from supplemental tables (or the figures themselves) and regraphing them to see if we come to the same conclusions as the authors.
LLMs can be overly credulous with the authors' claims, but finding the real data and analysis methods is too time consuming. Perhaps Claude with the right connectors can shorten that.
Totally agree with what you're saying. This tool ignores supplemental materials right now. There are a few reasons - some demographic, some technical. Anything that smells like data science would need more rigor.
Have you looked into DocETl (https://www.docetl.org/)? I could imagine a paper pipeline that was tuned to extract conclusions, methods, and supplemental data into separate streams that tried to recapitulate results. Then an LLM would act as the judge.
1. Add a donate button. Some folks probably just want to see more examples (or an example in their field, but don't have a specific paper in mind.)
2. Have a way to nominate papers to be examples. You could do this in the HN thread without any product changes. This could give good coverage of different fields and uncover weaknesses in the product.
Maybe a combo where I keep a list and automatically process as funds become available.
I increased today's limit to 100 papers so more people can try it out