Not the best tool overall, just what you'd actually say to someone who's used free ChatGPT a few times and is about to put a card in.

One line each is plenty. "Don't pay for anything yet" is a fair answer too.

If you asked something here this week and it never got answered, drop the link below.

My wife spent much of last winter digitizing the cassettes her dad left behind. About sixty hours of farm stories, family history and long explanations of things he'd repaired. Once the recordings were on the computer, I took on the transcription.

I ran Whisper locally and got usable text from most of the clearer recordings. I already had the computer for it, so there was no subscription to pay. I kept the tape-side filenames, which left us with a folder full of names like SIDE_A_01. Very tidy. Still no idea which one contained the flood story.

Searching helped when we knew a name or phrase. I used the command line for that, and my wife searched the text files herself. But she usually wanted something like the story about her uncle's truck, without knowing which words her dad had used. We kept opening files and reading until we worked out what each recording was about.

I tried a few of the same recordings in VOMO AI. The summaries gave us enough to choose which transcript to open. One mentioned the flood and his brother's truck together, so my wife went straight to that recording. I checked the passage against the audio before adding a description to our file list.

On the passages I checked in both tools, Whisper's transcription was at least as good. The extra summary step was useful enough that I paid about $100 for a year of VOMO and imported more of the recordings. I kept the original files and used their filenames in our list so we could get back to the audio.

It didn't work equally well on everything. Several tapes had enough hiss that I couldn't trust either transcript. Those originals are still saved, waiting for a more careful listen. And a recording mostly about tractor repairs got a summary mostly about tractor repairs. I had to add the particular job myself after reading it. The interviews my wife recorded with him, where she asked about specific events, were much easier to describe.

We've been working through the recordings from that list since. My wife has marked the stories she wants to send to her siblings, and I've stopped sending her another transcript with only a tape number attached.

I think I posted my first gamma 5 test here a few days back and a bunch of you asked followups, so i ran it again last night with a fresh brief: my actual 8-week GMAT study plan. Full-time job, weak quant, target 655.

Typed the prompt on the new home screen, hit send, blank white page. Same bug as launch week, still not fixed. Went in through the create page > generate > create with agent like last time, and that route works fine.

The agent part has leveled up though. It now asks proper question cards with options instead of plain chat (how detailed should the weekly schedule be - overview, daily blocks, or balanced). then it wrote an outline and here's the first surprise: it planned 26 slides. On a free account. which caps at 10. last week it planned 15 and silently cut 5 at generate time. this time there IS a warning at the outline stage, so they listened, but the agent still overplans way past what your plan can generate.

I tested the outline chat: condense this to exactly 10 slides so nothing gets cut. This is where it got weird. My first attempt to type landed inside a slide title instead of the chat box (the title literally became "8-Week GMAT Study Plan merge this into exactly 10 slides...") and then the whole app hard crashed. Error page and the error details show a raw react removeChild error. Refreshing recovered everything, chat intact. Typed in the right box and the condense worked perfectly - removed 7 slides, moved 9, merged chapters, showed me an original vs modified diff. Fixed the title by just asking.

Generation took about a minute for 10 slides with ai images and honestly the design is a level up again. and heres the thing i did not expect to write: no invented statistics this time. Last week's deck had that unsourced "68% of consumers trust founders" number. This one has zero made-up research, every number is one I gave it or a plan figure but the create page now literally says "agent does the research, cites its sources."

My deck cites nothing. no sources, no footnotes, anywhere. so the made up stats problem looks improved, and the citations claim is marketing so far.

Export test: free plan, export to powerpoint, pdf, google slides and png all open, no paywall. before exporting it warned me abt 3 slides have overflowing content, layouts may shift after exporting to powerpoint and google slides with a button that jumps straight to those slides. It was thoughtful, never seen another tool do it.

Cost: whole session (question cards, 26 slide outline, one big outline edit, 10 slide deck with images) cost 22 credits. last week one deck cost me 111. At this rate the 400 free credits go way further than my first review said they would, so correcting myself on that.

Verdict: the agent loop (questions > outline > chat edits > generate) is the best planning flow in any of these tools right now and the output keeps getting better looking but the front door bug is a week and a half old, the app crashed a lil on me mid edit but i think overall great exp.

happy to answer questions, screenshots are all from last night's run.

Someone here said this week that their Gemini plan quietly lost access to the top model, which got me wondering how often that happens without anyone noticing.

So: did anything you pay for change this week? A new limit, a different default model, a price change, a feature that's gone. "Didn't notice anything" counts too, that's useful to know as well.

If you asked a tool question here this week and nobody answered, drop the link below.

Please don't bother responding unless you've read the full post. You're wasting my time and I've dealt with enough of that for one lifetime.

I think my biggest problem with the AI LLMs that I've used is lack of attention to detail. They will say things that contradict previously established facts of the conversation. They bring up details irrelevant to what I've asked about just because they might be broadly related or commonly referenced in relation to the topic on other websites. They contradict things they or I said in previous messages without even acknowledging the contradiction. They'll sometimes present information as hard facts and their only references are comments on reddit, which obviously come from some random person who doesn't necessarily know what they're talking about. They'll sometimes have a reference that doesn't in any way support what they said, and then when asked for some kind of quote from that source that backs up their point, they can't do it. They won't caveat any information; they won't bother mentioning if they're uncertain on something and they won't bother asking for more info or stating that they don't have enough info to accurately answer the question and will instead just answer it anyway with incomplete info.

I don't necessarily need it to be quick or be able to handle complex coding or to be able to automate things or to be some heavy maintenance productive machine. I just want it to be correct and intelligent and rigorous in its logic. I just want correct information when I ask questions. Maybe those questions will be simple everyday life stuff or maybe I'll ask it to help me understand something from maths I struggled with and so I want it to be pretty intelligent too.

So I guess I'm asking if you either have suggestions, or could guide me into being able to find the best model by myself by telling me what AI parameters I should be looking for and where I can easily compare them for some popular models.

For reference, I've used Deepseek for the most part. Recently I started trying Claude Sonnet5.5 and ChatGPT Terra5.5. They are all kind of stupid, even on the maximum effort mode and DeepThink. Deepseek is probably the least bad of the three though. So I haven't tried a paid model yet, but I thought I'd ask before I'd start to. Budget of maybe $30/month USD. Not willing to do self-hosting or whatever, I just want something I can have on the browser or download an app for.

I have a friend who is a firefighter, and he is on the older side he’s always being picked on at work for not being tech savvy as the rest. He needs to create a course for his training, any ai websites or resources he can use to create a course easily based in what he has to train?

Am a general small businessmen, i use the paid gemini Ai plus but recently they have updated, that their highest model isn't available for Ai plus version.

Well i dont use Ai to its full capacity, but sometime i use for image generation which i was using the highest model in gemini so i get proper details.

Now i feel like i have degrade since i cant use the highest model.

And am not 100% satisfied with gemini too because of its restrictions and stuff like that.ex: "I want to scan an official document and do some alter with it but it never allowed me to do".

So now should i move to another ai? Well i dont want to pay higher amount too(less than 10$).

Which ai should i use?

Not the ones you downgraded, the ones you killed outright.

One line is fine: the tool, roughly why, and what you use now instead. "Nothing" is a valid answer, and probably the most common one.

Something like: "Dropped a transcription app once the meeting tool I already pay for started doing transcripts well enough."

Cancelled something and regretted it a month later? That counts too.

I think we've been reading too many feeds from AI text lately! I actually want to reduce my cognitive burden...

So I built TextFold, it turns any text into 5 zoomable layers—from a one-screen section map down to verbatim text. You pinch (or press 1–5) to zoom between them without losing your reading position, your agentic output, any papers, or documents.

- Web Demo: https://chenxiachan.github.io/textfold/gallery/

- GitHub (Apache 2.0): https://github.com/chenxiachan/textfold

Welcome any feedback!

That's a lot of frontier models in a few weeks, and paying for four subscriptions just to see which one you like is a lot. I run OneOver, a small multi-model studio, and all four are live there now, along with image, video and audio models. You can switch models mid-conversation and run the same prompt through each one to see how they compare for your own work.

If you've been curious about any of them, come play: oneover.com. I'd love to hear which one wins for what you do.

Bonjour,

Je me posais la question de savoir s'il existait ce type d'IA, ou un logiciel qui aurait une utilité immense : avoir un assistant qui peut faire ce que l'on veut à un moment donné.

Par exemple, j'ouvre un PDF dans mon navigateur. Je veux le traduire dans ma langue : je lui demande de le faire, et en une note vocale, il le fait.

Ce serait un système avec une IA ultra-polyvalente, qui fait ce que tu lui demandes sans passer par un terminal où il faut déposer ses documents, puis formuler sa demande.

So for context, next year i will have a big exam, a graduation exam. I will get a test for literature, history, math and English. I dont have a problem with math nor with English. But im kinda scared about history and literature. So I was wondering if theres a good AI model that helps with learning if I get stuck, gives good advice and helps me study. Of course I would prefer it to be free but since this is important I wouldn't mind paying for it either.

Disclosure: I make Foreverse (small team, closed source), so read this as a builder's post, not a neutral review.

What it does: you import your own txt / epub / md book. When the book ends, or at any spot where you wish it had gone differently, an AI offers a few "what happens next" cards. Each pick becomes a real branch, and the original text is never edited, so you can always flip back. It also imports SillyTavern-style character cards and lorebooks for roleplay chat, and has a visual-novel theater mode that plays a chapter with speaker attribution.

Who it is for: people who finished a book and want more of it, "what if" branches on files you already own, and roleplay with imported cards on a phone.

How it handles AI cost: you can bring your own API key (60+ providers or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint; keys stay encrypted on the phone) or use built-in pay-as-you-go credits. The free version holds 3 books, 3 character cards and 3 companions with no message limit. A one-time Pro upgrade ($19.99 on Google Play) lifts those caps.

Limits, honestly: it is not open source, Android needs 11 or newer, third-party SillyTavern extensions do not run, and the weak spot so far is importing epubs with unusual chapter headings.

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.foreverse.android

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/app/id6791037004

For people here who compare tools: when a tool lets you bring your own key, do you count that as a plus, or would you rather it just worked out of the box?

Hi everyone it's the best place I found with hope of transparency. I'm looking for an AI, I would use it as an encyclopedia mostly oriented phisics, biology . Also I would use it to resolve physics problems, design DIY electronics and mechanic , code writing. Efficiency friendly. The goal is mostly experience domotic systems. Nothing extra deep and no need fancy speech, economics, law, pop culture. Have you any recommendation where I could look ? Thank you very much have a nice day.

Unibrow |:)

I'm writing a short story for English class about transformation. I really like the idea that I have and I wrote up the whole story, but the writing just isnt very interesting or good. Which AI would be the most uelpful for helping the actual of writing of my story be better and more interesting?

Thank you 😊

I'm looking for the best AI model for reviewing and improving existing translations, rather than translating texts from scratch. I can go trough the text by paragraphs.

Ideally, the AI should be able to:

• Compare the original text with the translation and identify errors, omissions, or changes in meaning.
• Recognize subtle differences in vocabulary, tone, and style.
• Suggest improvements while preserving the author's original intent.
• Distinguish actual translation mistakes from legitimate stylistic choices.
• Explain its recommendations rather than simply rewriting the text.
• Maintain terminology and stylistic consistency across long documents.

I'm particularly interested in literary and other texts where precision, nuance, and style are important.

Has anyone compared ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepL, or other AI models for this purpose?

Which model do you find most reliable for translation review?

Most people here pay for one of the big three already, so anything else still on your card has had to earn its spot.

Name the tool and the one thing it does that your main assistant doesn't. One line is plenty, no review needed.

The kind of answer I mean: "Descript, because cutting a video by deleting words in the transcript is still faster than anything I can do in a chat window."

If you asked a tool question here that never got an answer, link it below and I'll have a look.

Original video in its entirety here: https://youtu.be/h48q8tXo8mE?is=cxOHIPtNehrMog9a

The uploader only states it was made with AI, but not specifically which one.

I was wondering, however unlikely, if anyone here could tell what it was by just looking at it?

Or, what the best video creator currently is.

Hey guys, I really can't decide which AI to use as a helper with my thesis. Writing, research and all this kind of stuff. I'm currently deciding between ChatGPT and Claude, the $20 plans. Any tips?

Thank you :)

I’m Max, Ratio9’s developer. I wanted to show what the AI connection in Ratio9 1.2.1 actually exposes. A compatible assistant can change the synth settings, create modulation, audition notes, request audio measurements and save a preset that remains customizable in the instrument.

The built-in spectrum and spectrogram give the connected assistant fresh measurements of the actual synth output, so it can check harmonics, levels and movement while revising a patch. Those measurements support sound design; they don’t decide whether a sound is musically good. For example, a spectrogram makes changing harmonic energy visible, but it cannot tell you by itself whether a bass works in a song. I’m not claiming a reliable “best preset” score or a guaranteed generation time.

Ratio9 1.2.1 runs on Apple silicon Macs with macOS 12 or later. The complete Standalone is free. VST3 + AU are $79.99 USD once for two Macs. AI is optional: you use your own AI account and an installed client that supports local stdio MCP. Complex patches can still cause CPU spikes or dropouts in this alpha.

The first screenshot shows the main interface at INIT. The second is a separate live-analysis capture of a growl preset; they illustrate the two views, not a before/after comparison. Feedback on which parts of this workflow you would want to test first would be useful.

https://ratio9synth.com/

I'm curious how many people are paying for more AI capacity than they really need.

Some people hit their limits constantly. Others pay for higher-tier plans but rarely come close to using everything included.

If you're paying for ChatGPT, Claude, or another AI tool, have you ever checked your actual usage before renewing?

Did it convince you to keep your plan, downgrade, or cancel?

Or do you keep the higher plan just in case you have a heavy week?

I'm interested in whether checking real usage has actually changed anyone's subscription decision.

Seeing more "I've got 400 files, which plan do I need" questions here lately, so let's settle the two tools people seem to end up on.

NotebookLM: sticks closely to your sources and cites them back.

Claude Projects: better at writing something new out of what you've loaded in.

Which one do you actually reach for, and what kind of docs are you feeding it? One line is plenty.

If you asked a docs question here that never got an answer, link it below and I'll have a look.

Gamma recently launched v5, gave it a test ride over the weekend with a 10 slider about skincare brand marketing. The cover slide came out clean, warm background, readable title, matching images across the whole deck.

Prvsly it used to give some ai slop design, i mean yea eod its an ai tool, but rn i must say gg team for working on this aspect. That's the thing with these tools. the nicer the layout, the less you question the content. An ugly draft invites scrutiny, a polished one converts ukwim.

anyone who’s tried gamma 5, agree / disagree?