It actually seems more like an aggregator (like ground.news) to me. And pretty much every single sentence cites the original article(s).
There are nice summaries within an article. I think what they mean is that they generate a meta-article after combining the rest of them. There's nothing novel here.
But the presentation of the meta-article and publishing once a day feel like great features.
> And pretty much every single sentence cites the original article(s).
Yeah but again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think asking an LLM to provide a source / citation yields any guarantee that the text it generates alongside it is accurate.
I also see a lot of text without any citations at all, here are three sections (Historical background, Technical details and Scientific significance) that don't cite any sources: https://kite.kagi.com/s/5e6qq2
Google points to phys and phys is a republish of the MIT article.
I guess I'm trying to understand your comment. Is there a distinction you're making between LLM summaries or LLM generated text, or are you stating that they aren't being transparent about the summaries being generated by LLMs (as opposed to what? human editors?).
Because at some point when I launched the app, it did say summaries might be inaccurate.
Looks like you found an example where it isn't properly citing the summaries. My guess is that they will tighten this up, because I looked mostly at the first and second page and most of those articles seemed to have citations in the summaries.
Like most people, I would want those everywhere to guard against potential hallucinations. No, the citations don't guarantee that there weren't any hallucinations, but if you read something that makes you go "huh" – the citations give you a low-friction opportunity to read more.
But another sibling commenter talked about the phys.org and google both pointing to the same thing. I agree, and this is exactly an issue I have with other aggregators like Ground.news.
They need to build some sort of graph that distills down duplicates. Like I don't need the article to say "30 sources" when 26 of them are just reprints of an AP/Reuters wire story. That shouldn't count as 30 sources.
The main point of my original comment was that I wanted to understand what this is, how it works and whether I can trust the information on there, because it wasn't completely clear to me.
I'm not super up to date with AI stuff, but my working knowledge is that I should never trust the output of an LLM and always verify it myself, so therefore I was wondering if this is just LLM output or if there is some human review process, or a mechanism related to the citation functions that makes it output of a different, more trusted category.
I did catch the message on the loading screen as well now, I do still think it could be a little more clear on the individual articles about it being LLM generated text, apart from that I think I understand somewhat better what it is now.
Either you mean every time you read something interesting (“huh”) you should check it. But in that case, why bother with reading the AI summary in the first place…
Or you mean that any time you read something that sounds wrong, you should check it. But in that case, everything false in the summaries that happens to sound true to you will be confirmed in your mind without you ever checking it.
...yes? If I go to a website called "_ News" (present company included), I expect to see either news stories aggregated by humans or news stories written and fact checked by humans. That's why newspapers have fact checking departments, but they're being replaced by something with almost none of the utility and its proponents are framing the benefits of the old system as impossible or impractical.
Gmail seems like the easiest piece of the Google puzzle to replace. Different calendar systems have different quirks around repeating events, you sometimes need to try a variety of search engines to find what you're looking for, Docs aren't bug-for-bug equivalent to the Office or iCloud competitors, YouTube has audience, monetization, and hosting scale... Gmail is just "make an email account with a different provider and switch all of your accounts to use the new address." They don't even give you that much storage for free Gmail; it's 15GB, which lots of other email providers can match (especially paid ones). You can import your old emails to your new provider or just store them offline with a variety of email clients.
Is updating all of your accounts (and telling your contacts about the new address) what you consider to be the hard part, or do you actually use any Gmail-specific features? Genuinely curious, as I tend to disregard almost all mail-provider-specific features that any of my mail providers try to get me excited about (Gmail occasionally adds some new trick, but Zoho Mail is especially bad about making me roll my eyes with their new feature notifications).
