Last time I tried it, app literally just read papers. As in parsed arxiv pdfs text2speech. It was an awful misunderstanding of the medium. Unless it was rebuilt significantly over last months, it's just bad.
General tendency for internet content tends to be strong separation between creators and consumers, in particular limited interest of consumers in other consumers (think twitch chat. Each message is valued very little compared to the streamer, to the point where they always read out messages they respond to). That means unless there's something nudging people to default outside of central path of audio, adding to conversation isn't part of canon content.
There could be a way for responder to signal where the content they are answering starts, with some sort of fuzzy automation in the future. I have strong doubts about the actual experience of this for the listener, but maybe that's solvable.
I meant situation, where I already consumed the whole recording, but it gets response later on.
I do not have mental model for context being logically attached to the response. Do you think about it as response+context being a valid piece of content?
I remember thinking about this exact problem (branching conversations, in particular audio), but I couldn't find a reasonable consumption pattern.
Looking at how I consume podcasts, it's a completely passive experience - I probably have something in my hands and can't talk. Choosing paths is just too much interactivity.
I figured that maybe that's just a wrong mode to look at it and people can consume the whole thing differently, not as a podcast. Ok then, I'm an obsessed power user/fan, I consume the whole thing, all branches. Given how human attention/memory works, that means returning to earlier parts of recording after listening to branch at least some of the time, multiple times experiencing 'where did we start? Let me go back a bit. Oh, that topic was the starting. Let me forward a bit now that I know it'. That's horrible, I think. You were at least more reasonable than me when thinking about it and decided to have only 1 level of branching ; )
In similar vein, what happens when comment gets added after I already listened/how do I know which parts are 'the definite experience'? Unlike previous two issues, those questions are answerable, but I'd still like to hear what you think the answers are!
Interesting, do you happen to have some quantitative results on this/additional insights/etc?
I've interpreted transformer vector similarity as 'likelihood to be followed by the same thing' which is close to word2vec's 'sum of likelihoods of all words to be replaced by the other set' (kinda), but also very different in some contexts.
I was thinking about similar solution (actually, textblaze funded by YC is pretty much that) but I didn't like remembering the shortcuts part. So I made a different kind of indexing for it: https://discu.space/ Presentation uses 'what are you answering to' as a key, but you can use anything.
It currently exists as (hopefully working for everyone, could use more testing) Chrome extension, but there's a universal API underneath. It could be run entirely locally if one was to give up portability.
++ with mere MA in cog sci and psychology. If you really wanted to get EEG to work for typing, maybe you could train someone to map thinking about specific kinds of things to the keyboard, but that would be an extremely weird experience. Eyeball is going to have the best signal about eyeball-related motor cortex we can access.
Phonetic diagrams aren't feedback though. You would explain how to do something correctly, but user wouldn't know what elements they need to change, unless they figure out on their own what they are doing right now. I know my teachers told me to do X when they heard me mispronounce something specific, but that's irl small group/1on1 experience.
Again, I'm curious if someone solved it. Theoretically this is within modern video/audio AI, but that doesn't mean we have the models or even organized data.
Anyone interested should just Google 'Elizabeth Loftus'. She convinced people of a bunch of things that never happened, some of them very quickly. Standard example is getting people to tell stories about meeting Bugs Bunny in Disneyland, but there was also some crime stuff, I think past trauma as well.
Law enforcement has their quotas and they'll use any garbage they can to fill it, but it's kind of hilarious that people just trust their memories for important stuff they can control.
Those are very different sentences and that difference makes them hold some content. Especially content like numerical values and limitations, making the whole thing waaaaaay less binary (which was the issue with the original one).
I went through abstracts of papers 1 and 3 ('long term exposure to cocaine induces neuroplasticity' isn't exactly controversial). The issue isn't with those papers, but in difference between them and 'cause neural rewireing'.
It's the difference you're also well aware of, because in 'summary' you put my exact quote quoting you in form of 'Everything causes neural rewiring' while on the way there you decided to argue against position that 'every interaction leads to a measurable change in the brain matter'. Those are different statements, unless there's some standard explaining that 'neural rewiring' refers to a specific level of changes that I'm simply not familiar with.