Do you think we worked to index millions of full-text articles over years to bypass actual thinking, reading, and research? Come on! You're being disingenuous here and trying to tear down work just for the sake of it. We want to enhance reading, discovery, and understanding, so we have made it easier to search or ask questions of research. We welcome constructive feedback, but your example is clearly not an "atrocity," as you describe it. I get it though it's reddit and everyone wants to comment some "gotcha!"

You are right, those are supported. GS is a great resource, we're just trying to help and move things forward. GS has not done much in 15 years, and arguably, more could be done. We will experiment, listen, and keep refining.

Thanks for the actual constructive criticism! Please do try it out and compare it with other sources. You can also just search our 1.2b excerpts without formulating it as a question: https://scite.ai/search?mode=all

The key differences:
- You can ask a question in plain language or search with boolean operators (can't do that in GS)
- We show three sentence excerpts from full-text articles, and GS only shows fragmented sentence excerpts to show how your search matched.

An atrocity? Lol, those are all indeed Presidents of the US, no? How is it totally misleading?

You seem to think that people are extremely stupid and cant read or reason at all.

We offer 40% off discounts if students/researchers recommend us to their university (we prefer they pay anyways). With the discount, it is 9 dollars a month. Without 20 if you pay monthly or 16 if you pay annually.

It returns abstracts as well as snippets. There is research showing the benefits of "citances" in understanding: https://scite.ai/search?mode=question-answering&q=Do%20citances%20help%20with%20understanding%3F

So it is safer to hide the information and only return titles? Do you view full-text search as harmful? Do you advocate for paywalls to keep the public out? Do you have the same issues with Google Scholar that shows excerpts? These excerpts are not standalone, they are linked directly to the full-text articles.

Seems as if you are portraying this as something that is not. It's a discovery engine where you can search using boolean operators or ask questions. The results are peer-reviewed articled titles, excerpts, and abstracts. I fundamentally disagree that that is somehow harmful to understanding or critical thinking. It makes research more accessible.

The excerpts are taken directly from research articles, they are not generated by AI. How does this "hand the reins of understanding to a computer"? How does surfacing excerpts and abstracts based on a search or a question worse than just returning titles?

Moreover, with each answer, there are citations so you can see how and why that article returned has been cited. We aim to increase critical thinking by surfacing conversations amongst papers, not just a list of citations we all treat equally.

I disagree with your harsh assessment and really your tone. We show citation context, which makes it easy to see how and why a paper has been cited in the literature, including if it has been supported or contrasted by other studies.

With scite, you can see if a paper has been supported/challenged.
Without scite, you only see a list of citing articles.

How does that streamline confirmation bias?

You can also do a keyword-based search, which can be a lot more comprehensive and in many cases will be better. If you can share the questions where it didn't work well, that would help us make improvements.

Thanks for the upvote!

> Natural raindrops contain bacteria at a concentration of 1.06 × 10 4 (/cm 3 ), including plant pathogens such as Pseudomonas syringae , Xanthomonas campestris, and Pantoea ananatis . Likewise, raindrops contain fungi such as Alternaria sp., Fusarium sp., Cladosporium sp., Phoma sp., Rhizopus sp., and Botrytis cinerea. …”

From: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28813-8