Enter promo code MAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOP to save 10% on purchases up to $420.69
I’ve tried it out with a paper I wrote and some of the references. The text-based summarizer is pretty handy. It provides links to the sources where it found what it regurgitates.
The podcast-creator… it’s full of fluff, gets details wrong, and I cannot recommend it to anyone other than the person that wrote the paper.
For me/the author, it was a way have parts of the paper highlighted, which may encourage me to go back and expand those sections. For people that don’t already know what the paper says… well, it made shit up. Not cool.
edit: if anyone’s interested in reading my paper, hit me up! I’m massaging it into the required format (grumble grumble word :( grumble grumble LaTeX :) ) for a local history journal and I’d love more eyes on it. It involves financial intrigue, family drama, mysterious women, and poetry about how awful someone’s inlaws are. Also, lots of lawsuits.
TBF, the Ars Technica write-up was more favorable. Also, I was wicked curious.
OH! It also just focused on the gendered nature of everything in my paper in a way that I didn’t. The paper involved an 1860s divorce and a doctor who got her degree in the 1890s IIRC. Yeah, that’s cool and all, but the ‘podcast’ kept circling back to harp on the ‘trailblazing women’ plotline in a way that I did not care for.
and I’d love more eyes on it
I hate podcasts. Doubly now so.
whoooooooooo’s sloppin’ my podcaaaaaasts?!