saratv

Sassbook AI Summarizer uses state-of-the-art AI to generate automatic summaries of text documents. The default mode is "Abstractive" which is equivalent to how humans summarize.

There is also the more traditional "Extractive" mode where key sentences from the original form the summary.

There are three categories of summary sizes as well.

In addition, for very short text, a highly abstractive "one-liner" may be produced (warning: wild!).

Thanks for trying and providing feedback!

Sassbook AI

This is way cool, yet violent!

Obviously we disagree.

Sassbook only generates completions that help the writer to express themselves. It serves to augment human capabilities and bring automation at a higher level that word-level auto-complete.

There are far more legitimate and useful outcomes when put to good use.

The narrative that spells doom around these technologies are at best marketing gimmicks.

Both on the general quality of generations as well as segmentation. We are still figuring out the priorities and domains.

Do you have any thoughts/suggestions?

Agree, and this is in general an issue with lots of "deep learning" AI technology. The models are trained on huge amounts of text in the public domain and biases often leak into them.

This is an active research area and we will actively try to address such issues.

Apologies if it offended you or anyone else.

Thanks for the feedback; these are important issues that we want surfaced.

Note that the generations aren't expected to be factually correct, but rather provides a possible completion, which may be edited for originality and correctness.

Thanks for trying and some profound thoughts around it!

Yes, we do learn from our surroundings and at an early stage in our lives. Nothing is totally novel.

However, the AI is intended to augment than replace and sometimes enhance our capabilities. Being predicable isn't such a bad thing after all!

Thanks again!

Thanks for the feedback!

Yes, the SaaS does rely on state-of-the-art NLG. I don't know why you think they are far better if we are using them as is. I am not offended at all; just curious where that big difference is.

Who says one can't compete against the best minds? Isn't that the premise of startups and progress?

If you are a fan of "CTRL", you should have liked ours a bit better.

Apps need to simplify and yet provide the desired experience for end users. From your feedback, it seems we need to try way harder.

Thanks!

At this time, the engine has no knowledge about your context (blogging etc.). It picks up completions matching the topic and style.

I understand that you find this odd since you are not composing a Reddit post.

Again, very useful feedback; keeps us busy.

Thanks!

If you are talking about recent AI ones, should generally comparable favorably and should be better in some contexts (rather limited at this time).

We are a new startup, so hope to move ahead and stay ahead.

If you have experience with others, could you try and let us know what you find?

Thanks much.

Apologies for that. The server issues are now fixed. Thanks for (re) trying.

Apologies for that. The server issues are now fixed. Thanks for (re) trying.

Apologies for that.

This should be fixed now.

Reddit is a source for the corpus, so it is likely that the style matches it. More likely for some topics/styles than others.

Do you feel it somehow affects the quality of generations?

Thanks for the feedback. It'd be great if you can sign up and try it further and help improve the application.

I won't rule it out completely. AI works by training on a large corpus of data, so some of that will be reflected in generated text.

However, the algorithm does not copy stuff verbatim from the corpus, but uses its "learning" (in the Machine Learning" sense.

So, generally one should be safe. Doing a quick check is recommended if you are using substantial portions as is.

Using a proper noun is completely fine though.

Agreed ;-( Thanks for trying.

BTW, you could just delete and retry and you might end up with a better completion. It is expected to create different generations on each attempt where possible.

Apologies for that.

Fixed it by adding more servers. Thanks for taking a look.

Also, each time you hit "Complete" or "Continue" a new completion is likely to be generated.

Thanks for trying it out and providing valuable feedback!

Could you please try hitting the "Continue" button? Since the first generation was reasonable, you could just continue until the generation starts to veer off.

A new prompt is needed to express the next thought and so on. Typically, 1-3 continuations are possible with decent results in most cases.

In any case, this is extremely useful feedback that we will address.

Could you please not give up and try the above suggestion?

Thanks!

That wouldn't be something that could be considered "to the extent reasonably needed to operate and provide the Services to you".

There is no such intent anyway. I'll review it with the lawyer and revise it to something that doesn't scare people away!

I suppose this is applicable in general to content (as far as lawyers are concerned) and to protect us in case there is a need legal necessity for compliance purposes.

Thanks a lot for trying and providing feedback!

Each time you click complete, a different completion is usually generated, so that is one thing you could try.

Also provide a longer prompt (30-40 words is ideal) to express your intent more clearly, so AI can pick up it up (it needs help!).

To be fair, the original response might be something someone is thinking of writing. For example, a digital marketer.

Thanks in advance for feedback and suggestions for improvement. You can try it out freely.

Cool. Perhaps add revisions too to avoid losing all work when shared.

Good one!I suppose the insights apply to not just bootstrapped businesses. Great clarity of thought.

How does this compare to Apify?

Interesting use of generative technologies

Looking for feedback and any advice you may have.

Thanks!