jbdamask

Thanks for the question and links.

I haven't done any token/cost optimization so far because a) the app works well-enough for me, personally; b) I need more data to understand the areas to optimize.

Most likely, I'd start with quality optimizations that matter to users. Things to make people happier with the results.

I haven't but am open to ideas. What kind of experience would be useful to you?

If by "auto-generated" you mean, does the LLM generate the output from the input, then yes.

I've upped today's (3/1) cap to 100 papers

Doh! I didn’t think of that. Interesting idea.

Very nice of you to say.

Nice

Thanks to everyone who tried this today and those who provided feedback. I really appreciate your time. Here are some stats:

100 papers processed.

Cost breakdown:

LLM cost $64

AWS cost $0.0003

Claude's editorial comment about this breakdown, "For context, the Anthropic API cost ($63.32) is roughly 200,000x the AWS infrastructure cost. The AWS bill is a rounding error compared to the LLM spend."

Category breakdown:

Computer and Information Sciences 41%

Biological and Biomedical Sciences 15%

Health Sciences 7%

Mathematics and Statistics 5%

Geosciences, Atmospheric, and Ocean Sciences 5%

Physical Sciences 5%

Other 22%

There were a handful of errors due to papers >100 pages. If there were others, I didn't see them (but please let me know).

I'd be interested in hearing from people, what's one thing you would change/add/remove from this app?

That decision-tree page is killer!

Sorry you hit this. 100 papers were processed today. Cost to me was $63.

Very cool. Appreciate it.

Agree. Curious if you’ve played with landing.ai?

I hear you.

For me personally, the pain point is being interested in more papers than I can consume so I’ve gotten into the habit of loading papers into LLMs as a way to quickly triage. This app is an extension of my own habit.

I also have friends without scientific backgrounds who are interested in topics of research papers but can’t understand them. The reason for the cutesy name, Now I Get It!, is because the prompt steers the response to a layperson

Hmmm, didn’t realize I was deflecting - just stating facts. But if I came across that way then criticism noted.

If I turned this into a paid app then more attention would be given to quality. There’s only so much an app that leverages LLMs can do, though. With enough trace data and user feedback I could imagine building out Evals from failure modes.

I can think of a few ways to provide a better UX. One is already built-in - there’s a “Recreate” button the original uploader can click if they don’t like the result.

Things could get pretty sophisticated after that, such as letting the user tweak the prompt, allowing for section-by-section re-dos, changing models, or even supporting manual edits.

From a commercial product perspective, it’s interesting to think about the cost/benefit of building around the current limits of LLMs vs building for an experience and betting the models will get better. The question is where to draw the line and where to devote cycles. Something worthy of its own thread.

Sorry. Reached 100 uploads today. Check out the gallery

LLMs, even the best ones, are still hit or miss wrt quality. Constantly improving, though.

I see more confusion from Opus 4.x about how to weight the different parts of a paper in terms of importance than I see hallucinations of flat out incorrect stuff. But these things still happen.

Sometimes the LLM output isn’t great. If you uploaded the paper you can click Recreate. Otherwise just upload the PDF and see if you get a better response

Good to know. There are also limits to context window of file size. These errors are emerging as people use the app. I'll add them to the FAQ.

The app doesn't do any chunking of PDFs

If you mean the bar chart, then yea, it made a representational chart.

The caption says, "Conceptual illustration based on the paper's framework — higher quality environments lead to better outcomes across all domains."

The app may be getting throttled. If you're waiting on a job, check back in a bit.

I don't. Too new and I haven't fully committed to this idea yet.

Someone processed a paper on designing kindergartens. Mad props for trying such a cool paper. Really interesting how the LLM designed a soothing color scheme and even included a quiz at the end.

https://nowigetit.us/pages/9c19549e-9983-47ae-891f-dd63abd51...

I see a few people trying to process big papers. Not sure if you're seeing a meaningful error in the UI but the response from the LLM is, "A maximum of 100 PDF pages may be provided"

It's much simpler than that: * HTMLs stored on S3, behind CloudFront * Links and metadata in DDB * Lambdas to handle everything

In some other apps, I've toyed around with charging for code access. Basically, a flat rate gets you into to the repo.

Would that interest you?

Personally, I hate subscription pricing and think we need more innovation in pricing models.

Hmmmm...I think they are, sometimes. I could add that to the system prompt. Thanks

Thanks

Lol - I had a much fancier prompt to start, with things like "Be sure to invoke your frontend-designer skill" and "Make at least one applet inside the page with user-friendly controls".

But then I said screw it, let me try "really freaking cool"

Cool. I hadn't seen Emergent Mind

Yep, NotebookLM is another flavor. YMMV.

Interesting idea about pulling references. My head goes to graph space...ouch