3 ms·
The quality of the summary is only as good as the effort you put into writing your workflow. If you’re simply one shotting the paper into a message and saying “
by phantompeace 2y ago
The quality of the summary is only as good as the effort you put into writing your workflow. If you’re simply one shotting the paper into a message and saying “plz summarise this and I’ll reward you with $1m” then of course it’s gonna be shit. But if you semantically chunked along sections and do some RAG Q&A summaries before combining into a well formatted schema then it’s probably going to be better than the first way.
I’m using the summaries as a juicier abstract. I’m not taking them as gospel.
I’m working on following references to then add those papers to a vector db for RAG so it can actually go the step beyond. It’s fun!
- hatefulmoron 2y ago> I’m using the summaries as a juicier abstract. I’m not taking them as gospel. I'm not sure of the value of this. Papers already have abstracts, rewording them using LLMs is just playing with your food. If you're seeing use out of it that's awesome though.
- phantompeace 2y agoYou do have a point you know. I have actually been thinking about this recently and have decided to try and focus more on extracting value out of abstracts instead of summarising papers, and relying on embeddings of the paper in case the answer needs more context.