Is there an actual comparison of the quality of the research bots? the ones I saw on youtube seem to only give a simple overview of how much detail each gives. OpenAI gives you a lot of info, but is it accurate or useful?
Just replying for the sake of the odd search user that ended up here, this is a good video comparing OpenAI deep research with Gemini as of mid-february 2025: https://youtu.be/zE4eApsRYuo?si=X7841lTK_NiGAZ15cfv
I've heard this sentiment. Have you been through a screening interview with a recruiter before? It's most often very formulaic and they don't have expertise in your domain. On top of that you have to find a mutual time that works for the recruiter 9-5pm.
With this approach you can interview anytime 24/7 and get a consistent experience.
Fixing the Firefox issue - thanks for pointing that out.
I was also thinking more about this sentiment, and how much or little it matters.
You're not selling this to interviewees. So their sentiment - that is, my sentiment - ultimately doesn't matter.
However, I would wager that a lot of good software engineers would view this as wildly disrespectful of their time, and would refuse to engage with this; it would be a filter for engineers who for whatever reason cannot say "no" to this - more desperate, more junior. It might impact the actual customers, when their talent pool starts looking shallow and full of algae.
> I would wager that a lot of good software engineers would view this as wildly disrespectful of their time, and would refuse to engage with this
This is exactly how I'd feel, yes. It would tangibly demonstrate that the recruiter has so little regard for me that I'd actively want nothing to do with them or the company that they're working for.
But it can also be a valuable two-way interaction - I can ask about benefits, about salary, about in-office/remote expectations. And more importantly, I can believe that those answers are binding, and not likely to be a hallucination unless the recruiter has been macro-dosing on that particular day.
Ultimately, this doesn't feel significantly different than recording a video of myself from prompts on a Google Doc.
Two-way interaction is of course valuable but it's only valuable with the team you'll actually be working with. You will never work with the recruiter who is responsible for your screening interview.
I would change the main CTA to "Try it now" and then use a different style for "Read the stats". It currently looks like there are two equally important CTAs.
If you can find a way to make the results closer to real-time, this will be a really popular product.
Appreciate the advice. Re: timing, it's bottlenecked by the sequential nature of the search. To be comprehensive, we discover a few papers, and use that info to choose where to look more closely next.
This is a sensible strategy. Apple finally revealed their cards after 5+ years of rumours surrounding the Apple Vision Pro. Meta doesn't have the brand strength to launch a true high-end XR headset that can compete with the Vision Pro. Instead, they're trying to capture the lower end of the market.
Eh, I may eat my words later, but unless they are hiding some really big features somewhere, I don't think there's much to worry about with the Vision Pro. It is stylish and neat, but it seems to be shockingly limited both in VR and AR. If anything it seems like just an accessory for an iPhone or a Mac.
Apple definitely has brand strength here, and I think Meta is even counting on it, but the utility of their device is underwhelming.
Go one level deeper and you'll find the problem with all of academia (source: I have a PhD).
Most of academic science as we know it today is structured so that the output is "publishable" and/or helps future grant applications. Incremental improvements are very publishable, but that doesn't necessarily make good science. Grants are awarded to scientists who are consistently able to deliver results, in the form of published papers. I can only really speak for my little corner of science, but from my view, the entire incentive structure of science is broken.
Incremental publication seems like a great idea. The only problem is that the publication process is so formal. But if we made publications as "blogs" or something, I think incremental units of forward progress are a reasonable way to do science. I suspect most science is done this way. I imagine there are few Wiles style FLT proofs around.
As the parent poster states, the key thing is that everything is structured about incentives conditional on delivering measurable results e.g. the quantity of published papers; but that implicitly includes a very important thing that "published" counts only if (and because) it has passed certain filters. There are no barriers to publish research outcomes as "blogs" or something, it is easy, so such "publication" doesn't imply that any reasonable research was done, and no incentives would reward such publishing, and that's why researchers often don't bother with it.
Like, the existing system already has issues with publication being too easy to game, with predatory paid journals, lax standards for reviewing, etc; that's hard to fix, but it's considered a problem - and so any changes making the barrier to publication even lower than that won't be welcome.
And from the perspective of researchers, we don't really want more publications - they're a pain to read, there's an overabundance of poor content that's salami-sliced, we do so many publications because the incentives push us toward this but we recognize that this is a bad thing and we'd be far better off if the same research would be published in fewer, better articles. But we can't, because anyone who does that will be effectively denied resources for future research.
it would also help us move away from the PDF to a web based medium, pdfs are generally suboptimal if not awful reading experiences for a scientific paper
Your argument is essentially that scientists, especially early career scientists, have very little room for failure. I would argue a central problem is that many grants for early career researchers have award rates below 10%. This is problematic because at some point why would you blow away a month of work to write a proposal that you gave a tiny chance of receiving. If the award rates were 20-30%, then you have more room for failure in the interim between grant awards.
Ribbon | Remote or On-Site | Toronto, Canada | Full Time https://ribbon.cool
Ribbon is to LinkedIn as BlueSky is to Twitter. We're rebuilding the world of professional social networks and employee recognition to be centred on one thing: ownership. We believe that everything you accomplish and achieve should be recognized and owned by you (not by a third party). When you move between organizations, your achievements and benefits should move with you. Ribbon is "Proof of Achievement".
We’re backed by top tier investors and operators from across the globe. We’re hiring full stack developers for our founding team - join us!
Ribbon | Remote or On-Site | Toronto, Canada | Full Time
https://ribbon.cool
Ribbon is to LinkedIn as BlueSky is to Twitter.
We're rebuilding the world of professional social networks and employee recognition to be centred on one thing: ownership. We believe that everything you accomplish and achieve should be recognized and owned by you (not by a third party). When you move between organizations, your achievements and benefits should move with you. Ribbon is "Proof of Achievement".
We’re backed by top tier investors and operators from across the globe. We’re hiring full stack developers for our founding team - join us!
Might wanna rethink this part, because I bet I'm not the only one who's never heard of BlueSky. This sentence was completely devoid of meaning for me. Figuring out what Ribbon does now requires me to read about BlueSky and figure out its relationship with Twitter first.
Ribbon is rebuilding the world of professional social networks and employee recognition to be centred on one thing: ownership. We believe that everything you accomplish and achieve should be recognized and owned by you (not by a third party). When you move between organizations, your achievements and benefits should move with you. Ribbon is to "Proof of Achievement" as Worldcoin is to "Proof of Human".
We’re backed by top tier investors and operators from across the globe. We’re hiring full stack developers for our founding team - join us!
There are plenty.